tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post772764444993153365..comments2023-09-23T05:56:35.265+12:00Comments on MandM: Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?MandMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-47894721979062945322009-08-12T07:02:47.000+12:002009-08-12T07:02:47.000+12:00Thanks Matt great article. Keep up the good workThanks Matt great article. Keep up the good workIsaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-79107620050595629472009-07-21T15:33:37.000+12:002009-07-21T15:33:37.000+12:00Interesting discussion. I certainly wouldn't w...Interesting discussion. I certainly wouldn't want to believe in a God who condones rape, so it's heartening to know that He doesn't.Rossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-11780088094168238122009-07-15T09:11:36.000+12:002009-07-15T09:11:36.000+12:00Matt: That depends on wether the skeptic is aiming...<i>Matt: That depends on wether the skeptic is aiming to actually refute Christianity competently or simply convince a whole lot of less informed people that he has.</i><br /><br />Who defines Christianity? You? Rick Warren? John Hagee?<br /><br /><i>Matt: No its not. Freethinkers cannot default epistemological relativism when it suits them and then praise reason and science as credible epistemic methods when they want to attack Christianity. </i><br /><br />When you've convinced the Pope to join the Presbyterian Church, perhaps I'll agree with you.<br /> Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-52722404965904644222009-07-11T21:12:13.000+12:002009-07-11T21:12:13.000+12:00PS.. this is in no way an attack on you. I find m...PS.. this is in no way an attack on you. I find my own prejudice creeping in all the time and have to keep stopping myself. It was more a genuine open question.... as was the first one (although you seemed to be a bit defensive if i may say so ... :) )Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-35408937276030665732009-07-11T21:06:04.000+12:002009-07-11T21:06:04.000+12:00I agree with you in this instance about your concl...I agree with you in this instance about your conclusion anyway. (although I suspect you assumed I did not).<br /><br />But it is good that you are honest enough to say that you:<br /><br />"expect that when correctly interpreted it will not command humans to do anything that is in fact morally abhorrent." <br /><br />But this creates a logical problem for you. You are in fact using YOUR moral intuition to determine the meaning of scripture. Many Christians debate the old homosexuality issue for instance. I have no idea where you stand on this issue, but some Christians think it is "morally abhorrent" to practice homosexuality... others think it is morally abhorrent" to deny loving couples the right to a happy life. If our own moral intuition is to be the guide on how to interpret ambiguous passages - how do you avoid subjectivity creeping in. How do you avoid reading what you want to find for other reasons like your own prejudice for instance? Just a thought. You need not answer it.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-69820186750700015172009-07-11T20:21:56.000+12:002009-07-11T20:21:56.000+12:00Max
I was not avoiding the question, just demand...Max <br /><br />I was not avoiding the question, just demanding parity. <br /><br />As to your question, I believe that scripture is the word of God, for this reason I expect that when correctly interpreted it will not command humans to do anything that is in fact morally abhorrent. For this reason I accept an exegetical principle that <i>all else being</i> equal a translation that coheres with our moral intuitions is better than one that does not. <br /><br />This does not mean I do not follow the evidence, note the words, <i>all else being equal,</i> if there is compelling evidence to the contrary then that could well lead me to accept that it does conflict with my moral intuitions. Which would require me either to reject my intuitions as mistaken on the point in question or to rethink my view of scripture. In this situation under discussion however the evidence is not compelling, as I argued the evidence favours rejecting the rape interpretation and it certainly does not demand that one accept it.<br /><br />I actually have a post where I spell my thoughts out on this a bit more at http://www.mandm.org.nz/search/label/Divine%20Command%20Theory and also at http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/02/brink-on-dialetical-equilibrium.html. So far from avoiding the question I actually have addressed it several times. <br /><br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/Zj0Tw51btbc/christian-blog-ranking-report-for-may.html" rel="nofollow">Christian Blog Ranking Report for May 09 – Tumeke</a>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-28001756043375003372009-07-11T19:33:56.000+12:002009-07-11T19:33:56.000+12:00Yes Robert - I know many have. Probably wrongly i...Yes Robert - I know many have. Probably wrongly in my opinion. I just wonder whether Matthew is open to where ever the evidence leads or whether his mind is made up before he starts.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-82632107890869618382009-07-11T19:32:50.000+12:002009-07-11T19:32:50.000+12:00Yes Matt.
I look at multiple translations - ownin...Yes Matt.<br /><br />I look at multiple translations - owning at least 20 Bible translations on my shelf (including French and German). I also make extensive use of commentaries. And I don't tend to take anything at face value without my own research and resorting to reading Bible passages it in the original language. I have actually made an effort to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew. Have you? <br /><br />Now - having answered your avoiding the question questions... what is your answer to mine? <br /><br />:)Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-31504572057567688862009-07-11T15:03:00.000+12:002009-07-11T15:03:00.000+12:00You can describe him as "Dr Matthew Flannagan...You can describe him as "Dr Matthew Flannagan, Christian Philosopher." (Matt prefers "Matthew" when people are using his last name with his first name). He has authored a book but it has not yet been published, his publications are journal articles thus far. <br /><br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/v-Zsg_rmyYw/sunday-study-does-bible-teach-that-rape.html" rel="nofollow">Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?</a>Madeleinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-59867766003858378542009-07-11T12:34:25.000+12:002009-07-11T12:34:25.000+12:00Matt, thanks for the quote. It's the 4th one d...Matt, thanks for the quote. It's the 4th one down right here:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-became-atheist.html<br /><br />How should I best describe you since some people may not know of you?<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/direct-evidence-of-moral-behavior-from.html" rel="nofollow">Direct Evidence Of Moral Behavior From Evolution</a>John W. Loftusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-30122372465211719802009-07-11T12:33:20.000+12:002009-07-11T12:33:20.000+12:00Matt, thanks for the quote. It's the 4th one d...Matt, thanks for the quote. It's the 4th one down <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-became-atheist.html"target="_blank">right here. How should I best describe you since some people may not know of you?<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/direct-evidence-of-moral-behavior-from.html" rel="nofollow">Direct Evidence Of Moral Behavior From Evolution</a>John W. Loftusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-12715742585042824372009-07-11T11:27:37.000+12:002009-07-11T11:27:37.000+12:00Max.
I’ll gladly answer your question, but just ...Max. <br /><br />I’ll gladly answer your question, but just first answer me this serious question. When you come across an internet site saying something like :the Bible teaches that women who are raped must marry the man who raped them” and provide a citation do you (a) look the passage up in more than one modern English translation (b) consult some commentaries on the original hebrew/aramaic/greek text (c) examine what Christian scholars say about the text . Or do you simply take it as gospel and repeat it in your next encounter with a believer. <br /><br />When you answer this question honestly, I’ll give an honest answer to yours. <br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/v-Zsg_rmyYw/sunday-study-does-bible-teach-that-rape.html" rel="nofollow">Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?</a>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-89937978912509933812009-07-11T11:03:43.000+12:002009-07-11T11:03:43.000+12:00I believe John Loftus has done that in his recent ...<i>I believe John Loftus has done that in his recent book,</i> Yes, Loftus is one of the few new atheists to actually address Christian scholars. I don't think he succeeds, but at least he is doing so. <br /><br /><i>but in my years of interactions with Christians, who do I see they most often cite to support their views? It's rarely the leading lights of Christian apologetics, but places like gotquestions.org, Tektonics, and, believe it or not, Answers in Genesis. So it does the skeptic little good to focus on someone like William Lane Craig when the Christians we interact with aren't necessarily convinced by him either.</i><br /><br />That depends on wether the skeptic is aiming to actually refute Christianity competently or simply convince a whole lot of less informed people that he has.<br /><br />I am sure you will accept that many if not most people do not understand evolutionary theory very well. I take it then that if a someone attacked showed (as they easily could) that these popular misunderstandings were false, and ignored the actual presentations and defences of evolution made by scholars in the field then you would accept that evolution is false and people should be skeptical of it? <br /><br /> <i>"The best argument on offer from the best Christian scholar" is very much in the eye of the beholder.</i> No its not. Freethinkers cannot default epistemological relativism when it suits them and then praise reason and science as credible epistemic methods when they want to attack Christianity.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/v-Zsg_rmyYw/sunday-study-does-bible-teach-that-rape.html" rel="nofollow">Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?</a>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-77503375822696573132009-07-11T10:45:23.000+12:002009-07-11T10:45:23.000+12:00Robert you write Unfortunately, Christians don'...Robert you write <i>Unfortunately, Christians don't understand the Bible in a uniform way, thus your suggestion is a non-starter.</i><br /><br />If you read the comments you respond to in context, you'll see I was refering to the belief that scripture is the word of God. And this is a uniform position amougst most Christian traditions. <br /><br /> <i>The best skeptics can do is critique the most popular understandings (usually simply by quoting other Christians)</i><br /><br />Actually this is a bad scholarly method, an honest method dictates you address the best representations of a position, not that you attack popular representations. <br /><br />Would you accept an attack on say evolutionary theory that utilsed this method: Suppose someone ignored the work of Darwin or any actual scientists and simply attacked the way the theory was commonly understood by the person in the street. Would it follow that evolution had been refuted.<br /><br /> <i>or demonstrate how the Bible is simply a man-made work, no different than other works regarded as holy, inspired, or divine within other faiths. </i><br /><br />This actually illustrates my point, if you start of assuming scripture is a collection of human writings utilise this assumption in intepreting scripture you don't <i>demonstrate</i> its merely the work of humans you actually assume it. <br /> <br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/v-Zsg_rmyYw/sunday-study-does-bible-teach-that-rape.html" rel="nofollow">Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?</a>Madeleinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-91540882454497536322009-07-11T08:10:33.000+12:002009-07-11T08:10:33.000+12:00Max, apparently some Christians have indeed conclu...Max, apparently some Christians have indeed <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/christian-faith-makes-person-stupid.html" rel="nofollow">concluded</a> "Yes" to your question.<br /><br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=397" rel="nofollow">Phrases to avoid if you’re trying to scare me into your religion</a>Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-19134148042556384052009-07-11T07:58:56.000+12:002009-07-11T07:58:56.000+12:00Madeleine: So I disagree, I think that "the b...<i>Madeleine: So I disagree, I think that "the best sceptics can do" is in fact find the best argument on offer from the best Christian scholar available and then critique that. </i><br /><br />I believe John Loftus has done that in his recent book, but in my years of interactions with Christians, who do I see they most often cite to support their views? It's rarely the leading lights of Christian apologetics, but places like gotquestions.org, Tektonics, and, believe it or not, Answers in Genesis. So it does the skeptic little good to focus on someone like William Lane Craig when the Christians we interact with aren't necessarily convinced by him either. "The best argument on offer from the best Christian scholar" is very much in the eye of the beholder.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=397" rel="nofollow">Phrases to avoid if you’re trying to scare me into your religion</a>Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-87023578936341183292009-07-10T19:01:39.000+12:002009-07-10T19:01:39.000+12:00Let me ask a serious question:
When you start to ...Let me ask a serious question:<br /><br />When you start to answer a question like: "Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?" do you start off with the attitude that perhaps you will conclude 'Yes' or perhaps you will conclude 'No'? Or are you already set in your mind that the answer will be 'No' and set out to find evidence and arguments to support this conclusion?<br /><br />I would be interested if you would ever conclude 'Yes' to this sort of question.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-77082953533950287262009-07-10T09:20:00.000+12:002009-07-10T09:20:00.000+12:00I find that sceptics more often than not will find...I find that sceptics more often than not will find the nuttiest, most fringe Christian interpretation of it and interpret it in the most unflattering way possible. <br /><br />So I disagree, I think that "the best sceptics can do" is in fact find the best argument on offer from the best Christian scholar available and then critique that. If they could manage that and do a good job of it then surely that would be far more powerful and would contribute more to the debate than the practice you suggest?<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/56q7W6ExPFo/mount-maunganui-adventures.html" rel="nofollow">Mount Maunganui Adventures</a>Madeleinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-47962423132605163312009-07-10T06:36:23.000+12:002009-07-10T06:36:23.000+12:00Matt: "The problem is that skeptics are tryin...Matt: "The problem is that skeptics are trying to critique Christianity, hence they need to critque the bible as <i>Christians understand it</i>."<br /><br />Unfortunately, Christians don't understand the Bible in a uniform way, thus your suggestion is a non-starter. The best skeptics can do is critique the most popular understandings (usually simply by quoting other Christians) or demonstrate how the Bible is simply a man-made work, no different than other works regarded as holy, inspired, or divine within other faiths.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=397" rel="nofollow">Phrases to avoid if you’re trying to scare me into your religion</a>Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-43165585176354719162009-07-08T16:04:47.000+12:002009-07-08T16:04:47.000+12:00John, let me make a few quick responses,
First, se...John, let me make a few quick responses,<br />First, seeing I can't in a comments box go into all the exegetical issues viz a viz Abram/Isaac, Jepthah, Canaanites etc lets grant your intepretations are correct, what follows? It follows that God in scripture gives a general command to all human beings to not kill the innocent and on two or three occasions granted an exception to some individuals for a particular occasion. I am not sure this shows God to be “barbaric”. To draw that conclusion you'd need to say a good person never ever in any circumstances would allow the killing of the innocent, few contemporary secular ethicists would accept this claim. <br /><br />Second, regarding your rejection of my third reason and proposed replacement. I am inclined to agree that, <i>if one is an atheist</i> that is a sensible position to take.Plantinga, Wolterstorff note that how you interpret a document depends, in part, on who one considers the author of the document to be. If the scriptures if scripture is the word of a perfectly good, rational God, then one has prima facie reasons for discounting interpretations which are abhorent, contradictory etc, hence something like my third reason will be a good principle of interpretation. But if you think that scripture is simply a series of writings by different human authors from a less enlightened time. One will not have prima facie reasons for discounting interpretations which are contradictory, immoral etc, unless you think the society of the time was unlikely to provide such interpretations. <br /><br />The problem is that skeptics are trying to critique Christianity, hence they need to critque the bible as <i>Christians understand it</i>. In this context one cannot start of assuming athiesm is true, use this assumption to infer a conclusion and then use the conclusion to attack Christianity, that will beg the question somewhat. It may be true that <i>if</i> God does not exist and did not author the bible the sensible thing to say is that its nonsense, the problem is Christians don't think God does not exist. So that says nothing about their position. <br /><br />Third you write<i>But then, this WAS a barbaric society. Just read Judges 19-21. </i> yes I have read those chapters. The problem is that these chapters implictly <i>criticise</i> the actions in question hence the passages show an awareness that the actions, specifically rape, were wrong. <br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/VkX0EEz52VI/bop-bloggers-drinks-tonight.html" rel="nofollow">BOP Bloggers Drinks - Tonight!</a>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-89968240128904880812009-07-08T15:45:01.000+12:002009-07-08T15:45:01.000+12:00John, let me make few quick of points in response,...John, let me make few quick of points in response,<br />First, seeing I can't in a comments box go into all the exegetical issues viz a viz Abram/Isaac, Jepthah, Canaanites lets grant your intepretations are correct. What follows? it follows that God in scripture gives a general command to all human beings to not kill the innocent and on two or three occasions granted an exception to some individuals for a particular occasion to do so. I am not sure this shows God to be “barbaric” to draw that conclusion you'd need to say a good person never ever in any circumstances would allow the killing of the innocent, few contemporary secular ethicists would accept this claim. <br /><br />Second, regarding your rejection of my third reason and proposed replacement. I am inclined to think that, <i>if one is an atheist</i> that is a sensible position to take regarding the scriptures. <br /><br />Plantinga, Wolterstorff note that how you interpret a document depends on who one considers the author of the document to be. If the scriptures if scripture is the word of a perfectly good, rational God, then one has prima facie reasons for discounting interpretations which are abhorent, contradictory etc, hence something like my third reason will be a good principle of interpretation. But if you think that scripture is simply a series of writings by different human authors of the past from a less enlightened time. One will not have prima facie reasons for discounting interpretations which are contradictory, immoral etc unless you think the society of the time was unlikely to provide such interpretations. <br /><br />The problem is that skeptics are trying to critique Christianity, hence they need to critque the bible as Christians understand it. In this context one cannot start of assuming athiesm is true, use this assumption to infer a conclusion and then use the conclusion to attack Christianity, that will beg the question somewhat. It may be true that <i>if<i></i> God does not exist and did not author the bible the sensible thing to say is that its nonsense, the problem is Christians don't think God does not exist. So that says nothing about their position. <br /><br />Third you write<i>But then, this WAS a barbaric society. Just read Judges 19-21. </i> yes I have read those chapters. The problem is that these chapters criticse the actions of the society in question for what they did, and the actions are described for the purpose of condemning them, hence the passages show an awareness that the actions, specifically rape, were wrong. <br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mandmblog/~3/VkX0EEz52VI/bop-bloggers-drinks-tonight.html" rel="nofollow">BOP Bloggers Drinks - Tonight!</a></i>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-45590169688100678912009-07-07T13:31:40.000+12:002009-07-07T13:31:40.000+12:00I think you've probably got me on this one. Ni...I think you've probably got me on this one. Nice article. I never said I was right about everything, although if God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and if God allowed Jepthah to think he was pleaseing God by sacrificing his daughter, then who knows what such a barbaric God might command? I'll do some more thinking about this. <br /><br />I dispute your third reason though, since God supposedly commanded genocide and never explicitly condemned forced servitude (i.e. slavery). In it's place may I suggest a different third reason. It's just hard to think any society would allow such a barbaric command if a victim of a rape must marry her rapist. I can think of no society that would allow for this and the consequences. But then, this WAS a barbaric society. Just read Judges 19-21. <br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/genesis-chapter-1-revised-reality.html" rel="nofollow">Genesis Chapter 1 (Revised Reality Version)</a>John W. Loftusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-78000292394269221142009-07-07T12:42:38.000+12:002009-07-07T12:42:38.000+12:00Wow, excellent post! Thanks for the thorough resea...Wow, excellent post! Thanks for the thorough research.Williamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-31262045884134403722009-07-06T22:24:44.000+12:002009-07-06T22:24:44.000+12:00For some reason links don't work, so here'...For some reason links don't work, so here's the url of the discussion i referred to in my previous post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77612Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-2115242928407546852009-07-06T21:13:01.000+12:002009-07-06T21:13:01.000+12:00This reminds me a of a discussion I had a few year...This reminds me a of a <a rel="nofollow">discussion I had a few years back over at Theologyweb</a> (my nickname in that thread is "Dr. Jack Bauer"). It's another one of those cases where pointing out the facts is a bit like taking away somebody's toys. They might not tell you that you're wrong, but they sure will cry a lot!Glennnoreply@blogger.com