Women

[David Henson]

The Hebrew term for woman is ishshah which literally means female man. It can also be rendered wife. The Greek word gyne is likewise either rendered as woman and wife.

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God.

Woman was created as a helper for man. Even in our modern society which places very little value on humility, this term, helper, is considered an insult. The Hebrew ezer is rendered helper. At Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:7 and Psalm 33:20 Jehovah God is our helper (ezer). As a helper and compliment of man the woman, with her own unique mental, physical and emotional charactoristics was far more than an assistant in their daily work but a partner in mutual support and companionship.

Critics of the Bible often look at it with a very narrow perspective. It is important, when looking at the Bible, to recognize that bad examples of wicked men were included as an example for us to that effect. These are bad examples. It is also important to recognize that God gave the earth to man as stewards to do what they will with it up to a certain point and didn't always approve of the way they were handling things but allowed it. God was tolerant of certain customs but he also regulated the treatment of women for their protection. (Exodus 21:10-11 / Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times.

Women played an important part throughout Bible history, as judges, prophetesses and as an extremely important part of the early Christian ministerial effort.

[Pure Argent]

Your point? This does nothing to establish the Bible as true. Why don't you respond to the rebuttals - which you specifically requested - over in the other thread if you want to make a case for your religion?

[Foster Zygote]

Do you mean that democratic society of two hundred years ago in which ownership of slaves was legal and common place?

[I Am The Scum]

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards.

No, it's not.

By differentiating between the morality of old and the morality of today, you are introducing a world of problems to your theology. I'm hoping you will agree that there are immoral commandments in regards to the treatment of women (a woman being forced to marry the man that raped her, for example). Given that, was it immoral at the time of the Bible? If not, then morality can change, and we have no way of knowing what it is. If it was immoral at that time, then your god is commanding people to be evil.

It's sick, nonsensical mythology through and through.

[Michael Redman]

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times.So, the Bible reflects the culture at the time it was written?

[Limbo]

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God.


Coincidentia oppositorum?

[JJM 777]

The Hebrew term for woman is ishshah which literally means female man.
Female individual.

For example, "ish et re'ehu" = "one another".

Since God is neither male nor female

According to what source?


Jehovah

Or Yahweh, as intentionally misspelled by the Masorets?

God was tolerant of certain customs but he also regulated the treatment of women for their protection. (Exodus 21:10-11 / Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
If "tolerant" = "neither preventing nor punishing in this life", the tolerance extends to... well... everything and anything brutal that humans ever did to others in history.

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards.
Right... from a humanistic and atheistic viewpoint. But what if the practices are said to be dictated by eternal and omniscient God word by word? Or did you just confess that the limitations of human understanding and moral thinking define and limit the religion that we are discussing?

Would you clarify, what else in this religion is defined and limited by the contemporary human thinking and understanding of each era? And what in this religion is divinely free from any such limitations?

[Sun Countess]

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God. That's why Jehovah is referred to as a "She" as often as a "He" and as "Mother" as often as "Father." Oh wait.

Woman was created as a helper for man. Even in our modern society which places very little value on humility, this term, helper, is considered an insult. It sounds like you're going for a separate but equal argument here. Would you be as pleased with your theology if man was created as a helper for woman?

As a helper and compliment of man the woman, with her own unique mental, physical and emotional charactoristics was far more than an assistant in their daily work but a partner in mutual support and companionship.And why the man is called the helpmate (of helpmeet) of the woman so often in the bible. Because they're equals. Except for the whole concept of women being the property of men.....and oh wait. That never happens either.

God was tolerant of certain customs but he also regulated the treatment of women for their protection. (Exodus 21:10-11 / Deuteronomy 21:15-17)Tolerant of what ancient customs? Rape perhaps? And what were the women being protected from - other men maybe? He allowed men to take women as concubines, which is just a euphemism for sex slave or rape victim, take your pick. (I think that's what god said to all his chosen men - "See those women over there. Take your pick! Enjoy. It's for their own protection.")

Why would god have to be tolerant of certain customs or regulate the treatment of women for protection from other men, when he could have just kicked some male butt and told them that women were their equals and they should be treated as human beings, instead of property and sexual vessels?

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. No it isn't.

What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times. And yet 200 years ago, women were still the property of men and weren't allowed to vote. Thanks, Bible!

Do you think that women in ancient times were happy to be sex slaves of conquering tribes? Do you think that the regular drudge slaves were jealous of the sex slaves of their masters? Do you think the women felt any better because they were told some sort of sick perverted god told them it was their duty to rape women? Don't forget that alongside these men that we're "not allowed to judge by our standards" were real live women, whose lives were an absolute misery.

Women played an important part throughout Bible history, as judges, prophetesses and as an extremely important part of the early Christian ministerial effort. Enough to outnumber all the women who were merely pieces of property, victims of rape and incest, and temptresses of weak-willed men? And I've never understood why women buy into the christian mindset, except that so many women still have a hard time believing that they are in charge of their own lives, and instead will live with men who treat them in less-than-equal ways for "their own good" or "their own protection."

[dafydd]

The Hebrew term for woman is ishshah which literally means female man. It can also be rendered wife. The Greek word gyne is likewise either rendered as woman and wife.

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God.

Woman was created as a helper for man. Even in our modern society which places very little value on humility, this term, helper, is considered an insult. The Hebrew ezer is rendered helper. At Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:7 and Psalm 33:20 Jehovah God is our helper (ezer). As a helper and compliment of man the woman, with her own unique mental, physical and emotional charactoristics was far more than an assistant in their daily work but a partner in mutual support and companionship.

Critics of the Bible often look at it with a very narrow perspective. It is important, when looking at the Bible, to recognize that bad examples of wicked men were included as an example for us to that effect. These are bad examples. It is also important to recognize that God gave the earth to man as stewards to do what they will with it up to a certain point and didn't always approve of the way they were handling things but allowed it. God was tolerant of certain customs but he also regulated the treatment of women for their protection. (Exodus 21:10-11 / Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times.

Women played an important part throughout Bible history, as judges, prophetesses and as an extremely important part of the early Christian ministerial effort.

What is the point? You refuse to enter into any kind of meaningful discussion,you've demonstrated that on other threads.

[Hokulele]

Remind me to go sit on David's couch when I am menstruating. :cool:


ETA: Leviticus 15:23, for those who might think I am just being random.

[dio]

God was tolerant of certain customs but he also regulated the treatment of women for their protection. (Exodus 21:10-11 / Deuteronomy 21:15-17)



Exodus 21
10-If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11-And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.


dio translation:

If a guy takes a second wife, he can still keep the first one if he wants(21-10), OR he can just tell her to GTFO, if that's what he wants.(21-11)

Protection FAIL.

[devnull]

David, just a little OT, but do you have any thoughts about the translation problems with "virgin" vs "young woman"?

Ive heard it said that "virgin" is a mistranslation.

[David Henson]

Your point? This does nothing to establish the Bible as true. Why don't you respond to the rebuttals - which you specifically requested - over in the other thread if you want to make a case for your religion?

I went there and all I could find was the Deathclaw.

[David Henson]

David, just a little OT, but do you have any thoughts about the translation problems with "virgin" vs "young woman"?

Ive heard it said that "virgin" is a mistranslation.

You are more than likely more knowledgable in what the Christian aplogetics have to say on that. I abandoned that arena years ago after only briefly entertaining it.

Unless you give me specific scripture I can only assume exactly what you mean.

The Hebrew bethulah is a unmarried woman regardless of age who has never had sexual intercourse. The Greek word parthenos differs in that it can apply to both male and female unmarried. The Hebrew term almah appears at Isaiah 7:14 and is translated "maiden." Almah can apply to a virgin or nonvirgin.

[David Henson]

Remind me to go sit on David's couch when I am menstruating. :cool:


ETA: Leviticus 15:23, for those who might think I am just being random.

:jaw-dropp

[Alice Shortcake]

Remind me to go sit on David's couch when I am menstruating. :cool:


ETA: Leviticus 15:23, for those who might think I am just being random.

Is there room for two?

*sits down next to Hokulele*

[Pure Argent]

I went there and all I could find was the Deathclaw.

Suuuure. You missed this entire wall of text (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781246&postcount=279). I believe that.

[Lucian]

Is there room for two?

*sits down next to Hokulele*

If you can scoot over a bit, I've got ibuprofen and chocolate. I assume Hokulele is bringing the bacon.

[paximperium]

Suuuure. You missed this entire wall of text (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781246&postcount=279). I believe that.
I believe, he missed about 3 whole rebuttals.

Edit:
Sorry...4:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781404&postcount=290
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781578&postcount=294
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781904&postcount=298
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5782615&postcount=307

[David Henson]

dio translation:

If a guy takes a second wife, he can still keep the first one if he wants(21-10), OR he can just tell her to GTFO, if that's what he wants.(21-11)

Protection FAIL.

Not a very careful interpretation, dio.

The verses are dealing with a woman's right to have children if she wants them. This was a law of Israel, and nothing to do with the Christian. If a man married a woman who had no inheritance then the husband was obligated upon her request, even if there was another wife, to give her children so that her family line and thus inheritance could continue. This was such an important law the Jehovah even provided further protection in the brother in law marriage law where if a husband died before fathering children and the woman didn't remarry the brother in law was obliged to marry and father the widow's children for the same reason.

The young woman engaged to be married also had rights over her the army as far as her future husband up to a year after marriage for the same reason. (Deuteronomy 20:1-5, 7; 24:5)

[David Henson]

Suuuure. You missed this entire wall of text (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5781246&postcount=279). I believe that.

It was an entire wall of text!

I'm just messing with you, I will get back to it. Its not going anywhere soon.

[Skeptic]

I think his point is that the bible isn't as anti-woman as it is often portrayed. It's true that by the standards of the time and place, the bible was practically a radical feminist bleeding-heart liberal commie thing (with its concern for the poor, giving women at least some important rights, etc.) but still, 3000 years or so have passed since then, and some things changed.

[Hokulele]

Is there room for two?

*sits down next to Hokulele*

If you can scoot over a bit, I've got ibuprofen and chocolate. I assume Hokulele is bringing the bacon.


C'mon over! According to Leviticus 15:20, it is officially unclean, which I guess means we get to keep it since I doubt David wants unclean furniture. Odd how this chapter basically tells us that a perfectly natural function, one that we don't have any control over (other than through methods provided by science), is a sin.

Next, let's go find a nice Ferrari to sit on/in. I've always wanted one of those!

[TraneWreck]

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times.

According to you, the Bible represents the immutable morality of God. They had the Bible back then, what do we know about morality that isn't contained in the Bible?

[Trent Wray]

I went there and all I could find was the Deathclaw.

I've concluded that David has what he claims is a thorough understanding of his bible and a few "god experiences" under his belt. These threads are his way of

1) discussing what he enjoys, the bible, with people he hopes to find intelligent conversations with and maybe --- god forbid --- the semblance of a friend
2) for those who want him to actually prove his fantasy/god --- he takes out his frustration with his odd deprecating tactic of "you suck but I suck more so I'm better" to cover over his disappointment that all he has to back up his fantasy and life spent focussing on this is a book and a few experiences

[David Henson]

That's why Jehovah is referred to as a "She" as often as a "He" and as "Mother" as often as "Father." Oh wait.

Jehovah is referred to in the masculine but Jesus Christ is prophetically referred to as wisdom which is in the feminine. It's a language thing, like a spannish table. [Fawltey Towers Reference: I know, I learned it from a book.]

It sounds like you're going for a separate but equal argument here. Would you be as pleased with your theology if man was created as a helper for woman?

Yes [looks at mother and sister through the corner of eyes] absolutely!

And why the man is called the helpmate (of helpmeet) of the woman so often in the bible. Because they're equals. Except for the whole concept of women being the property of men.....and oh wait. That never happens either.

Helpmate? You know they have some nice translations from this century, too.

The idea of a husband as an owner of his wife was a part of the way people, man and woman, thought in primitive cultures such as Israel. God wasn't going to tell people how to think. He allowed it, but regulated it against abuse. So Proverbs 19:14 says the inheritance of fathers is a house and wealth but a discreet wife is from Jehovah and Deuteronomy 21:14 says that they couldn't sell a wife for money. The bride price was a compensation for the loss to the family not a purchase.

Tolerant of what ancient customs? Rape perhaps? And what were the women being protected from - other men maybe? He allowed men to take women as concubines, which is just a euphemism for sex slave or rape victim, take your pick. (I think that's what god said to all his chosen men - "See those women over there. Take your pick! Enjoy. It's for their own protection.")

Sometimes I think that the negativity of skepticism can be misleading to the skeptical. That sort of emotional complaint needs a more specific reference. Provide scripture, please.

Why would god have to be tolerant of certain customs or regulate the treatment of women for protection from other men, when he could have just kicked some male butt and told them that women were their equals and they should be treated as human beings, instead of property and sexual vessels?

Because, as I said, God gave the earth to man as in mankind as stewards to do up to a point, what they wanted.

And yet 200 years ago, women were still the property of men and weren't allowed to vote. Thanks, Bible!

Thanks democracy. As the Encyclopaedia Judaica said: “The prophetic comparisons of the love of God for Israel to the love of a husband for his wife can only have been made in a society in which women were respected.” The advice of women was respected in Bible times. Jehovah himself compared himself to women (Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:13) and Jehovah told Abraham to listen to the advice of his wife, Sarah. (Genesis 21:10-12) To listen to "the law of your mother." (Proverbs 1:8)

Do you think that women in ancient times were happy to be sex slaves of conquering tribes? Do you think that the regular drudge slaves were jealous of the sex slaves of their masters? Do you think the women felt any better because they were told some sort of sick perverted god told them it was their duty to rape women? Don't forget that alongside these men that we're "not allowed to judge by our standards" were real live women, whose lives were an absolute misery.

Again, I need specific references to respond.

Enough to outnumber all the women who were merely pieces of property, victims of rape and incest, and temptresses of weak-willed men? And I've never understood why women buy into the christian mindset, except that so many women still have a hard time believing that they are in charge of their own lives, and instead will live with men who treat them in less-than-equal ways for "their own good" or "their own protection."

Due to the same sort of assumptions out of ignorance that you are making against the Bible?

[David Henson]

According to you, the Bible represents the immutable morality of God. They had the Bible back then, what do we know about morality that isn't contained in the Bible?

The morality issue from a Christian / Atheist debate perspective is ridiculous. What is the point?

[TraneWreck]

The morality issue from a Christian / Atheist debate perspective is ridiculous. What is the point?

The point is that you argue that God is the source of morality. You think the Bible represents the word of that God.

A society in the past that had access to the word of God, had access to the only moral authority you recognize. What knowledge did they lack to justify your excusing thier bad behavior? Cultures change, but not the Rock of Ages. Why is slavery wrong now, but ok back then? Did God change his mind?

[David Henson]

C'mon over! According to Leviticus 15:20, it is officially unclean, which I guess means we get to keep it since I doubt David wants unclean furniture. Odd how this chapter basically tells us that a perfectly natural function, one that we don't have any control over (other than through methods provided by science), is a sin.

Next, let's go find a nice Ferrari to sit on/in. I've always wanted one of those!

You are aware of the fact that the Mosaic law only applied to the nation of Israel and was terminated by Jehovah himself and so no longer in effect for about 2,000 years, don't you. You and the others are welcome on my couch and Ferrari any time.

Hey, I like the sound of that. My Ferrari [grabs the keyboard like a steering wheel and says "Vroom! Vroom!]

[David Henson]

I think his point is that the bible isn't as anti-woman as it is often portrayed. It's true that by the standards of the time and place, the bible was practically a radical feminist bleeding-heart liberal commie thing (with its concern for the poor, giving women at least some important rights, etc.) but still, 3000 years or so have passed since then, and some things changed.

Awesome avatar!

[David Henson]

So, the Bible reflects the culture at the time it was written?

Of course it does.

[David Henson]

The point is that you argue that God is the source of morality.

Before we go on where do I argue that?

You think the Bible represents the word of that God.

Correct.

A society in the past that had access to the word of God, had access to the only moral authority you recognize.

Again, where are you getting this idea?

What knowledge did they lack to justify your excusing their bad behavior?

[Looks around] Who me?!

Cultures change, but not the Rock of Ages. Why is slavery wrong now, but ok back then? Did God change his mind?

Did God change his mind about slavery? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/slavery.html)

Why does such a thinking man/woman as you appear to be make such careless assumptions?

[Foster Zygote]

The morality issue from a Christian / Atheist debate perspective is ridiculous. What is the point?

Why is that?

[ZeeGerman]

You are aware of the fact that the Mosaic law only applied to the nation of Israel and was terminated by Jehovah himself and so no longer in effect for about 2,000 years, don't you.

Not according to
Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Better get a new couch then.

Zee

[I Ratant]

The morality issue from a Christian / Atheist debate perspective is ridiculous. What is the point?
.
Atheists are moral.
Many christians can be moral also, when they apply themselves.
I expect any knowledge you might be passing on to us will be as ignorant as the Dominicans that composed "The Malleus Maleficarum", Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, friars who wrote the book on detecting and punishing witches in 1486.
Your lack of knowledge on every subject you have broached is probably even worse that what was considered fact 524 years ago.

[TraneWreck]

Before we go on where do I argue that?

Again, where are you getting this idea?


Feel free to distance yourself from other Christians. Frome whence do moral come, then?

It's real easy to say, "I don't think that, here's what I think______."





[Looks around] Who me?!

Uh, yeah, you:

"It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times."

That's an argument that we can't judge past cultures by current moral standards. I would love to hear an argument about how this is possible. What do we understand about morality now that we didn't know then? We have the same Bible, and, if you'll recall, those people are much more closely tied to the folks who got the info from God. If anything, they would be more accurate about the God's intent.



Did God change his mind about slavery? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/slavery.html)

Why does such a thinking man/woman as you appear to be make such careless assumptions?

That article was rubbish. Here's the quote it uses to show that Israelis treated the slave trade harshly:

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you." Deuteronomy 24:7

Notice selling ISRAELIS into slavery is punishable by death.

How does God feel about non-Israelis?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


Is the New Testament any better? Even the article you linked says no, it contains this little gem:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

and this:

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


and this:

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


Yes, the Bible alternately gleefully supports, tacitly acknowledges, or gives moral support to the institution of slavery.

[Sun Countess]

Jehovah is referred to in the masculine but Jesus Christ is prophetically referred to as wisdom which is in the feminine. It's a language thing, like a spannish table. So Jesus was a woman?!?:eye-poppi

The idea of a husband as an owner of his wife was a part of the way people, man and woman, thought in primitive cultures such as Israel. God wasn't going to tell people how to think. Didn't he give them a whole bunch of laws telling them exactly what they should do? :confused:

Sometimes I think that the negativity of skepticism can be misleading to the skeptical. That sort of emotional complaint needs a more specific reference. Provide scripture, please.
Scroll down for these.

Because, as I said, God gave the earth to man as in mankind as stewards to do up to a point, what they wanted. He was sometimes in on the action, ordering rapes and genocides on a whim.

Again, I need specific references to respond.

My pleasure. Shall we start with one of my favorites, from Genesis Chapter 16:

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

Does this describe consensual sex, or the handing over of property in the form of a woman?

Exodus Chapter 21:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

They can dress it up as "marriage" but it's not consensual. It's selling property and then deciding who gets to rape it first or most often.

Moses gets in on the action in Numbers Chapter 31:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Oh, gee, I wonder what they were going to do with them that they didn't want to do with the non-virgin women or the men. Heavy labor?

God promotes rape and voyeurism at the same time in 2 Samuel, Chapter 12: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
I'm sure the wives appreciated being raped while the public looked on.

Deuteronomy has lots of cool rules regarding rape in chapters 21 and 22:

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.

22:23-24
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

21:10-14
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."
Are you getting the picture that none of this is consensual and that the rules aren't making anything fairer or nicer for the women involved in this brutality?

Judges (21:10-14) is great for the greatest gang-rape in fictional history; it's a two-parter:

"This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
<snip>
Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.

And let's not forget the lovely virgin Mary, raped by the great man/woman/holy spirit him/herself.

So explain again how women were allowed to be treated like property for their own protection.....?

[Hokulele]

You are aware of the fact that the Mosaic law only applied to the nation of Israel and was terminated by Jehovah himself and so no longer in effect for about 2,000 years, don't you. You and the others are welcome on my couch and Ferrari any time.

Hey, I like the sound of that. My Ferrari [grabs the keyboard like a steering wheel and says "Vroom! Vroom!]


Ah, so the protections for women offered by the verses in Exodus and Deuteronomy mentioned your OP are no longer in force?


Hmmm...

[Dancing David]

You are aware of the fact that the Mosaic law only applied to the nation of Israel and was terminated by Jehovah himself and so no longer in effect for about 2,000 years, don't you. You and the others are welcome on my couch and Ferrari any time.

Hey, I like the sound of that. My Ferrari [grabs the keyboard like a steering wheel and says "Vroom! Vroom!]

Uh huh, sure and where did YHVH say that exactly?

[Elizabeth I]

If you can scoot over a bit, I've got ibuprofen and chocolate. I assume Hokulele is bringing the bacon.

I have shrimp cocktail! And steamed lobster with drawn butter!


Next, let's go find a nice Ferrari to sit on/in. I've always wanted one of those!

Naw, let's just find somebody with a lot of money and sit on the cash. Then we can buy anything we want.

[Simon39759]

David, just a little OT, but do you have any thoughts about the translation problems with "virgin" vs "young woman"?

Ive heard it said that "virgin" is a mistranslation.

Depending of the situation, the word for a woman that had lost her virginity before marriage was either: 'Wife' (because she was forced into marriage upon discovery) or 'Corpse'.

In these circumstances; 'virgin' and 'unmarried woman' were generally pretty much interchangeable.

[Achán hiNidráne]

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards.

Then you and other relgionists really ought to stop offering up the barbaric dictates of your respective ancient holy book as absoute, unquestionable "morality," shouldn't you Coward?

[JJM 777]

None of my questions were answered, so I am outta this thread.

[TimCallahan]

. . . . Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God. . . .

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times. . . .

First, though this may seem like quibbling, "Jehovah" is a Protestant corruption of YHW (or V)H (or, in the Hebrew alphabet, yodh - he - vau - he), which was probably vocalized as "Yahweh"). By the time rabbinical scholars were compiling the Masoretic Text (MT) the personal name of God was considered too sacred to be spoken. However, since the scriptures were to be recited aloud, the Masorettes put the vowel points for the word adonai or "lord" under the consonants YHVH, indicating that, when the verse was recited, the word "Lord" was to be substituted for YHVH. Some Protestant translators, using the MT rather than the Septuagint (LXX), thought the vowel points of adonai applied to the consonants YHVH and that the personal name of God was YaHoVaiH or Jehovah, though, to their credit, the translators for the most part translated YHWH as LORD (i.e. all in caps).

As to the argument that we shouldn't judge an ancient society by modern standards, the problem I have with that is that the Bible is supposed to espouse universal, unchanging morals and ethics. It seems odd, therefore, that God would absolutely forbid idolatry, yet would condone slavery, for example. In fact, the Bible would seem much more like the word of God had the Hebrew scriptures (and the Christian scriptures as well) said, "You will not hold any man, woman or child as a slave. You shall not by and sell human beings. It is an abomination." Likewise, the whole nonsense about women being unclean during their menstrual periods is hard to accept as divinely inspired or even divinely tolerated.

[David Henson]

None of my questions were answered, so I am outta this thread.

Please be patient with me, I have many people coming at me and I am only one person.

[Hokulele]

Depending of the situation, the word for a woman that had lost her virginity before marriage was either: 'Wife' (because she was forced into marriage upon discovery) or 'Corpse'.


Or, if she was the daughter of a priest, "Corpse flambé ".

*Shudder*

[Simon39759]

Or, if she was the daughter of a priest, "Corpse flambé ".

*Shudder*


That actually sounds delicious, like some kind of delicacy... Maybe a recipes for a crépe topping...

[Hokulele]

That actually sounds delicious, like some kind of delicacy... Maybe a recipes for a crépe topping...


As far as I know, distillation of alcohol wasn't practiced in that time and place, so the flambé process was a little tough on the soon-to-be-corpse. I prefer my dessert to involve a little less screaming.

Besides, would you trust the recipes from a culture that didn't appreciate bacon?

[Trent Wray]

As far as I know, distillation of alcohol wasn't practiced in that time and place, so the flambé process was a little tough on the soon-to-be-corpse. I prefer my dessert to involve a little less screaming.

Besides, would you trust the recipes from a culture that didn't appreciate bacon? Whipped scream isn't for everyone ...

[dafydd]

None of my questions were answered, so I am outta this thread.

David never answers awkward questions,it's part of the christian ethos.

[Sun Countess]

I went to some trouble to provide scriptural references and everything.......I really hope David eventually comes by to let me know how god regulated laws for women's protection, when he was generally the one ordering up all that raping.

[DC]

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless

evidence for this claim?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Aahhhhhh..... women. I love women.
'Nuff said.


Res Ipsa Loquitur.

[Dancing David]

I have shrimp cocktail! And steamed lobster with drawn butter!



As a goddess oriented pagan, can I sit next to you?

Can I haz a cheeseburger?

[Elizabeth I]

As a goddess oriented pagan, can I sit next to you?

Can I haz a cheeseburger?

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!

[paximperium]

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!

It depends if he had some beans earlier in the day.

[Trent Wray]

David never answers awkward questions,it's part of the christian ethos. :D

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum! If making the couch unclean by sitting on it is wrong then I don't want to be right ...

[Elizabeth I]

It depends if he had some beans earlier in the day.

I'd have to see chapter and verse for that. ETA: and why doesn't the Bible say more against flatulence? Is God a twelve-year-old boy?


:D

If making the couch unclean by sitting on it is wrong then I don't want to be right ...

Exactly!

[paximperium]

I'd have to see chapter and verse for that. ETA: and why doesn't the Bible say more against flatulence? Is God a twelve-year-old boy?
It's in one of the Apocryphal works. The Council of Nicea was not impressed by the Jesus fart jokes.

[Trent Wray]

I'd have to see chapter and verse for that. ETA: and why doesn't the Bible say more against flatulence? Is God a twelve-year-old boy? "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord"

Also --- see Gideon's Trumpet :)

[Trent Wray]

It's in one of the Apocryphal works. The Council of Nicea was not impressed by the Jesus fart jokes. The Flatus according to John.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!Maybe he has issues.

And he who is sitting on the vessel on which he sitteth who hath the issue, doth wash his garments, and hath bathed with water, and been unclean till the evening. Leviticus 15:6

[Dancing David]

I don't know - can you make the couch unclean just by sitting on it? But cheezburgers - yum!

I am not afraid of the 'moon flow', I do wash regularly. I think I might be unclean because I ate ham during passover.

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

[Lucian]

I am not afraid of the 'moon flow', I do wash regularly. I think I might be unclean because I ate ham during passover.

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

You know it's not actually the moon that flows, right?

[Trent Wray]

You know it's not actually the moon that flows, right?

You're looney :)

[Lucian]

You're looney :)

Yes, I worship at St. Loony-up-the-Cream-Bun-and-Jam. What's your point?

[Trent Wray]

Yes, I worship at St. Loony-up-the-Cream-Bum-and-Jam. What's your point?
For you to say that the moon doesn't flow is a stream of lunacy and you know it ;)

[Elizabeth I]

And technically the cheeseburger is not 'seethed in the milk of the mother' but close enough.

Just ate a cheeseburger, and I was right - yum!

[Beerina]

It's interesting that, biologically, men are really "male females". We have nipples because the basic human body plan has nipples. That means female.

Also, it's brutally clear from evolution that males of species evolved from hermaphroditic species. Somewhere along the line, someone failed to be impregnable, but still managed to pass along their genes, of course, with the partner doing the heavy lifting. Whether the "dandy-ification" of the male started before this physical inability to bear children, or after, I have no idea.


And yes, human males, like those of almost all other species, are the dandies, with their manes (AKA beard + hair) and, yes, their beer bellies. Oh, and their wars for dominance.

[David Henson]

Female individual.

For example, "ish et re'ehu" = "one another".

Ish means man. Could you give a scripture where "ish et re'ehu" is used? Ishshah literally means female man, man with a womb.

According to what source?

Matthew 22:30.

Or Yahweh, as intentionally misspelled by the Masorets?

Explain this, please? The name was replaced with the generic term lord, not mispelled intentionally.

Right... from a humanistic and atheistic viewpoint. But what if the practices are said to be dictated by eternal and omniscient God word by word? Or did you just confess that the limitations of human understanding and moral thinking define and limit the religion that we are discussing?

The religion we are discussing? Religion has nothing to do with it.

Would you clarify, what else in this religion is defined and limited by the contemporary human thinking and understanding of each era? And what in this religion is divinely free from any such limitations?

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether.

[David Henson]

I went to some trouble to provide scriptural references and everything.......I really hope David eventually comes by to let me know how god regulated laws for women's protection, when he was generally the one ordering up all that raping.

Clever . . . I will respond this morning.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether.

Except that females are not derived from males. In fact, males are a modification of the female form. Or would you like to explain why men have nipples.

[David Henson]

What is the point? You refuse to enter into any kind of meaningful discussion,you've demonstrated that on other threads.

Meaningful discussion?! What, from you?! Read my sig.

[Morrigan]

I think his point is that the bible isn't as anti-woman as it is often portrayed. It's true that by the standards of the time and place, the bible was practically a radical feminist bleeding-heart liberal commie thing
No, it really wasn't. The Egyptians and the Celts gave more power to women than the Bible ever did.

[David Henson]

I've concluded that David has what he claims is a thorough understanding of his bible and a few "god experiences" under his belt. These threads are his way of

1) discussing what he enjoys, the bible, with people he hopes to find intelligent conversations with and maybe --- god forbid --- the semblance of a friend
2) for those who want him to actually prove his fantasy/god --- he takes out his frustration with his odd deprecating tactic of "you suck but I suck more so I'm better" to cover over his disappointment that all he has to back up his fantasy and life spent focussing on this is a book and a few experiences

Interesting. Not entirely accurate, but at least interesting.

[Trent Wray]

I don't know why you keep referring to a discussion on what the Bible says about women as "religion." It has nothing to do with religion. I am talking about what Jehovah God, through his inspired writers, dictated to his people in the Bible. How religion has interpreted that in the abuse of women is another subject altogether. This sums up the frustrative (sp) disconnect in discussing these things with you David. Religion and our own subjective interpretation of scripture is what a non-believer and most believers have to go on when discussing Jehovah God. It is what they use to assume the Bible is true. You are assuming Jehovah God is true to subjectively describe your interpretation of religion and scripture.

Interesting. Not entirely accurate, but at least interesting. Thank you. I'm glad you're responding to my posts and that you're still in town, esp after the nonsensical attacks on you the other day that were despicable, but enlightening as to your person. So that having been said ... when will you be willing to discuss Jehovah God "freely"? That is what I'm waiting to dissect your brain about :)

[David Henson]

Why is that?

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. It didn't apply outside of ancient Israel and then was terminated by Jehovah due to their faithlessness and rebellious practices.

The Christian morality applies only to Christians.

If, in the society you live in and the time you live in, morality is influenced by one of those two that is only an indication that those two have influenced your morality.

So what is the issue? That women have been mistreated due to the morality of your time and place? There are many examples in both the Mosaic law as well as Christian writings that women should be respected and treated fairly. You society's abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law and Christian scripture is your society's problem, not a Biblical issue as such.

[I Ratant]

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. ...


.
The nasty minded old men that enforce the law use the pretense of speaking for jehovah as their authorization for their brutalities.
It's a common thing with religions.
Crazy men hear voices, and sadly, many of these monsters are in positions of power where they can and will kill to follow the noises in their heads.

[David Henson]

Not according to
Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Better get a new couch then.

Zee

But the law was fulfilled.

Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor. Galatians 3:19 - 25

For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness. Romans 10:4

[Foster Zygote]

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. It didn't apply outside of ancient Israel and then was terminated by Jehovah due to their faithlessness and rebellious practices.

The Christian morality applies only to Christians.

If, in the society you live in and the time you live in, morality is influenced by one of those two that is only an indication that those two have influenced your morality.

So what is the issue? That women have been mistreated due to the morality of your time and place? There are many examples in both the Mosaic law as well as Christian writings that women should be respected and treated fairly. You society's abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law and Christian scripture is your society's problem, not a Biblical issue as such.

According to the laws you reference, women were treated as property. They were treated as inferior to men even if there were laws governing their treatment. Are you saying that we can't judge Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves because he took good care of them?

There are other issues of morality raised in the Tanakh as well. The book of Joshua describes wholesale genocide. We are told that the Hebrews slaughtered women and children in their god's name. Is it inappropriate for us to judge this negatively because it arose from a different culture, a culture that justified the killing of whole families? So we can't judge the Khmer Rouge because they they thought they were doing something glorious?

[Aurelian]

I recently read that in the complicated genetic expression of gender, the default setting of the human body is female, meaning if your genes say "male" and some combinationi botches the formation of a penis, or the descending of testicles, as well as other gender attributes, it will take a doctor and a few advanced tests to determine your gender as male. It seems that female body exists before maleness is formed. So much for woman being from the rib of man.

You do need to think beyond 8th grade science and X/Y chomosomes.

It's ironic that the genetics of the body is so different from the sacred text of centuries/millenia ago. And I don't mean it as blasphemy, as I can hold both ideas without my head exploding.

This was one of the takeaways from Natalie Angier's "Woman, an Intimate Geography" which has both good writing and solid scientific research.

[TraneWreck]

Because morality is a societal issue. It is dictated by the society you live in and the time you live in. The society of ancient Israel under the Mosaic law had their morality which was at least attempted to have been dictated by Jehovah their God. It didn't apply outside of ancient Israel and then was terminated by Jehovah due to their faithlessness and rebellious practices.

The Christian morality applies only to Christians.

If, in the society you live in and the time you live in, morality is influenced by one of those two that is only an indication that those two have influenced your morality.

So what is the issue? That women have been mistreated due to the morality of your time and place? There are many examples in both the Mosaic law as well as Christian writings that women should be respected and treated fairly. You society's abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law and Christian scripture is your society's problem, not a Biblical issue as such.

That still doesn't explain how we've learned to be more moral over time.

Slavery was either approved of or accepted in both the Old and New Testament. Now we consider slavery to be among the most immoral institutions ever conceived of.

If God is the source of morality, and he hasn't given us any new moral dicatates since the New Testament, how do you explain the addition of such ethical norms? Did God leave things out, was he wrong, or are we now wrong to oppose slavery?

We sane atheists have no problem explaining cultural learning. We don't pretend like humans have ever had access to ultimate moral truths. You do.

As long as we're at it, why does God never directly deal with child molestation? Surely an omnipotent God could have foreseen the development of the current Catholic child-rape cult. An eleventh commandment on that score would have been nice.

I don't know about you, but I think adultery is a far less serious crime than child-molestation, yet both the Ten Commandments and Jesus seem far more concerned with the former.

[Freethinker]

It is unfair to judge ancient practices and customs by modern standards. What is thought to be demeaning to women today wasn't thought of in that way even 200 years ago in democratic society, let alone in ancient Bible times.

I agree completely. The needs, knowledge and conditions of the time mean that we cannot compare our modern morality with theirs......but, it is fair to judge an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god by our modern morality. Such a god is not influenced by the culture and traditions. Abhorrent treatment of women (Deuteronomy 22, Numbers 31 etc., etc.) and foreigners (Exodus 21)was ordered by god in the bible. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things were immoral. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things would reflect poorly on him and his religion.

Strange how the knowledge of an omniscient god could be limited to the knowledge of man at the time of its recording.
For instance, did you know that if goats look at striped sticks while they mate, they'll produce striped offspring? God knew it in Genesis 30!

[TimCallahan]

I agree completely. The needs, knowledge and conditions of the time mean that we cannot compare our modern morality with theirs......but, it is fair to judge an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god by our modern morality. Such a god is not influenced by the culture and traditions. Abhorrent treatment of women (Deuteronomy 22, Numbers 31 etc., etc.) and foreigners (Exodus 21)was ordered by god in the bible. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things were immoral. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things would reflect poorly on him and his religion.

Strange how the knowledge of an omniscient god could be limited to the knowledge of man at the time of its recording.
For instance, did you know that if goats look at striped sticks while they mate, they'll produce striped offspring? God knew it in Genesis 30!

Okay, David Henson, both Freethinker and I have pointed out to you that an omniscient, omnipotent God should have statutes that are universal. Are you going to respond to either of us?

[David Henson]

So Jesus was a woman?!?:eye-poppi

Didn't he give them a whole bunch of laws telling them exactly what they should do? :confused:


Scroll down for these.

He was sometimes in on the action, ordering rapes and genocides on a whim.



My pleasure. Shall we start with one of my favorites, from Genesis Chapter 16:

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

Does this describe consensual sex, or the handing over of property in the form of a woman?

Well, it was both. Hagar was a slave which was property, but there isn't any reason to think the sex was anything but consensual. Slaves were not obligated to have sex without consent. Consider, for example, the case of Joseph who resisted the advances of Potiphar's wife.

Exodus Chapter 21:[/B]

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

They can dress it up as "marriage" but it's not consensual. It's selling property and then deciding who gets to rape it first or most often.

What makes you think it isn't consesual? What evidence is there of this ever not being consesual? The concubine existed before the Law of Moses and then was regulated by it. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 / Exodus 21:7-11

Moses gets in on the action in Numbers Chapter 31:[/B]
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Oh, gee, I wonder what they were going to do with them that they didn't want to do with the non-virgin women or the men. Heavy labor?

See my response above.

God promotes rape and voyeurism at the same time in 2 Samuel, Chapter 12: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
[B]I'm sure the wives appreciated being raped while the public looked on.

Isn't it interesting when atheists rant about the "mental" or "apologetic" "Gymnastics" we believers have to perform in order to come to the concusion we want yet never is this applied to non-believers.

Again. Rape isn't the issue here. Nathan's prophecy indicated that God would allow or had known that David's son Absalom would do the same thing to David that David had done to Uriah. 2 Samuel 16:22. Skeptics often mistake prophecy for God's will. For example at Deuteronomy 28:30 it says: "You will become engaged to a woman, but another man will rape her. You will build a house, but you will not dwell in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not begin to use it." This doesn't mean that God will punnish them by causing rape, it means, whether figuratively or literally rape would be a result.

[David Henson]

Okay, David Henson, both Freethinker and I have pointed out to you that an omniscient, omnipotent God should have statutes that are universal. Are you going to respond to either of us?

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

[David Henson]

I agree completely. The needs, knowledge and conditions of the time mean that we cannot compare our modern morality with theirs......but, it is fair to judge an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god by our modern morality. Such a god is not influenced by the culture and traditions. Abhorrent treatment of women (Deuteronomy 22, Numbers 31 etc., etc.) and foreigners (Exodus 21)was ordered by god in the bible. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things were immoral. The omniscient god who knew when he said it that these things would reflect poorly on him and his religion.

Strange how the knowledge of an omniscient god could be limited to the knowledge of man at the time of its recording.
For instance, did you know that if goats look at striped sticks while they mate, they'll produce striped offspring? God knew it in Genesis 30!

Like I told Tim, show me where the Bible indicates that Jehovah God is omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.

However, the point as you presented it doesn't even require that He is those things because the people of the society in which we are considering are obviously not.

[TimCallahan]

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

Okay, now this is weird. Are you actually saying that you worship a less than perfect God? One who maybe makes mistakes? One who does not have universal values?

However, to answer your question, will this do?

John 1:1 - 3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOd, and Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

While this doesn't say in so many words that God is omniscient and omnipotent, one would assume that he would be with respect to his own creation, which, according to the verses above, includes everything that exists.

[dio]

Slavery was either approved of or accepted in both the Old and New Testament. Now we consider slavery to be among the most immoral institutions ever conceived of.


Strange how the knowledge of an omniscient god could be limited to the knowledge of man at the time of its recording.


Yes, concepts that we hold dear today in our modern democracies (freedom, equality) were not very popular with the writers of the bible.
The biblical "thy neighbor" seems to me to refer to members of the same horizontal social layer, rather than to the society as a whole.

[David Henson]

That still doesn't explain how we've learned to be more moral over time.

Absolutely. It shows that morality is subjective. Modern morality is getting to the point where homosexuality is no longer considered immoral. When I was born, in 1966, that wasn't the case. In Bible times, that is, the nations around ancient Israel and the rebellious Israelites who adopted the practices of the nations around them they were way ahead of us on seeing homosexuality as moral.

We see pedophelia as immoral. Joseph was probably about 32 years old when h married Mary who was probably about 14 or 15. This would be immoral in our day. But earlier than that there was a problem with catomites in Isreal, young boy prostitutes of pagan religion. That was immoral according to the Nation of Israel (although they transgressed in every law), the Christians (early Christians that is) and today in modern society.

Some Native american tribes considered sex between men and boys as sexual education, the Romans . . . don't get me started. The Olypmics?

What you are doing isn't a comparison of morality what you are doing is holding God accountable to your own moral standards.

Slavery was either approved of or accepted in both the Old and New Testament. Now we consider slavery to be among the most immoral institutions ever conceived of.

Yes, and we form all sorts of preconcieved notions of morality that isn't really morality if morality is dictated to us by society because our society - our time, is not their time.

In ancient Israel you could be a slave for stealing something which you couldn't pay for until the value of it was paid off. We think it is more moral to put the person in a cell for a period of time which doesn't provide compensation but rather costs society.

If God is the source of morality, and he hasn't given us any new moral dicatates since the New Testament, how do you explain the addition of such ethical norms? Did God leave things out, was he wrong, or are we now wrong to oppose slavery?

If we opposed slavery when it was legal was that wrong and according to who? Slavery existed before the Law of Moses, it was only regulated by God. Does God approve of our deciding that slavery is wrong? Probably, but that isn't the point. He gave us free will. He gave man the planet as stewards. The slavery issue was ours, not God's.

We sane atheists have no problem explaining cultural learning. We don't pretend like humans have ever had access to ultimate moral truths. You do.

What you atheists do, over and over again, is make assumptions about me based upon your opposition to religion. Just as you do with the Bible.

As long as we're at it, why does God never directly deal with child molestation? Surely an omnipotent God could have foreseen the development of the current Catholic child-rape cult. An eleventh commandment on that score would have been nice.

I don't know about you, but I think adultery is a far less serious crime than child-molestation, yet both the Ten Commandments and Jesus seem far more concerned with the former.

What The Bible Says About Pedophilia (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/pedophilia.html)

[TraneWreck]

Yes, concepts that we hold dear today in our modern democracies (freedom, equality) were not very popular with the writers of the bible.
The biblical "thy neighbor" seems to me to refer to members of the same horizontal social layer, rather than to the society as a whole.

Yeah, it was very tribal. Even the concept of "chosen people" reflects the non-universality of the Bible's contents. Hence the harsh words for Israelis attempting to sell other Israelis into slavery, but the eager, God commanded, snatching of slaves from other tribes.

This is true of many groups throughout history. I believe the word used by the Sioux to self describe translates as "People." If you aren't Sioux, you aren't "people."

It's just that we've randomly chosen one tribe's stories (or, more accurate, Constantine chose that tribe's stories) and elevated them to the infallible words of the Creator.

Baffling.

[Sun Countess]

Well, it was both. Hagar was a slave which was property, but there isn't any reason to think the sex was anything but consensual. Slaves were not obligated to have sex without consent. Consider, for example, the case of Joseph who resisted the advances of Potiphar's wife. There's no reason to think the sex was consensual. She's a slave, she's property, she has no bargaining power. What makes you think that Hagar really really wanted to have sex with Abraham?

What makes you think it isn't consesual? What evidence is there of this ever not being consesual? Oh yeah, because every random pairing of slave and owner = mutual sexual attraction between slave and owner. Do you honestly believe that in 100% of cases of masters having sex with their slaves it was a consensual act? I know you're not big on bringing modern sensibilities into things, but nowadays we recognize there is no real consent when the power is so unevenly balanced between the parties.

And when the victors of war gather up 100s of virgins for their wives or concubines, it was all consensual. Riiiiiiiight. Nothing makes a woman hotter for a man than being scooped up as his own personal spoil of war.

Again. Rape isn't the issue here. Nathan's prophecy indicated that God would allow or had known that David's son Absalom would do the same thing to David that David had done to Uriah.
So when it says, "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. , he's just talking about a prophecy where he'll be ordering the raping of the wives, but that he won't actually be the one taking the wives out to be raped?

I don't get it.

You obviously don't get it either, if you're claiming that every act of men claiming concubines or being ordered to have sex with their brother's widow or their slaves is a consensual act. It's rape. And the laws of Deutoronomy specifically talk about rape, but you'll probably explain how it's for a rape victim's own protection that she must marry her rapist. After all, a powerful law-giving god couldn't possibly think of a better scenario which involved punishment for the man instead of continual torture of the woman.


I always learn a lot about a person when I hear how they interpret their god's words.

[TraneWreck]

Absolutely. It shows that morality is subjective. Modern morality is getting to the point where homosexuality is no longer considered immoral. When I was born, in 1966, that wasn't the case. In Bible times, that is, the nations around ancient Israel and the rebellious Israelites who adopted the practices of the nations around them they were way ahead of us on seeing homosexuality as moral.

[...]

In ancient Israel you could be a slave for stealing something which you couldn't pay for until the value of it was paid off. We think it is more moral to put the person in a cell for a period of time which doesn't provide compensation but rather costs society.

That still doesn't answer the challenge, it's just a reiteration of your previous statements.

I guess we should deal with the question laying at the foundation of this disagreement: Do you think God is the source of morality?



If we opposed slavery when it was legal was that wrong and according to who? Slavery existed before the Law of Moses, it was only regulated by God. Does God approve of our deciding that slavery is wrong? Probably, but that isn't the point. He gave us free will. He gave man the planet as stewards. The slavery issue was ours, not God's.

Haha, so you don't even really know whether slavery is right or wrong?

If your book can't even explain that, why should I pay any attention to it?

He gave us free will but told us not to murder. He gave us free will and made it really clear that dudes weren't supposed to kiss.

He gave us free will then supported the institution of slavery.

Your argument is completely incoherent. Do you think reading the Bible will give a person information on how to behave correctly? And is that information complete or must one find another source?



What The Bible Says About Pedophilia (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/pedophilia.html)

You really need to stop using that site. It often makes the other side's case better than it's own.

"There are a couple reasons why pedophilia isn't often specifically mentioned in the Bible. First of all, because homosexuality, adultry, and premarital sex were all against the law, which would make most cases of pedophilia against the law."

Hmm, doesn't the prohibition against adultery and pre-marital sex also obviate the need to discuss the evils of homosexuality? Yet they go into great detail about that.

[dio]

You really need to stop using that site.

Click on "Email". ;)

[Sun Countess]

You really need to stop using that site. It often makes the other side's case better than it's own.Agreed. This argument:
Secondly, it was not uncommon for a young maiden, such as Mary for example, at the age of 15 or 16, to be married to a much older man, like Joseph for example, at the age of about 32. By modern day American standards that would be classified as pedophilia.
basically says what David has been saying about applying modern day standards to ancient cultures, by noting the bible wasn't about to prohibit pedophilia because it was all good back in the day!

"Look, by modern standards, Joseph himself would have been classified a pedophile, since he married a child when he was a grown man, but we all know he couldn't really be a pedophile, because he was Joseph and Joseph was a good guy, even by our modern standards."

What a great reason for the bible not condemning pedophilia. Of course, the commandments don't prohibit concubines or rape either. You're just not allowed to have sex with another man's wife; it says nothing about married men raping other unmarried women. (Er, excuse me, by raping, I really meant "pursuing other consensual sexual relations with their human female property or randomly selected virgin women from other tribes.") :rolleyes:

[David Henson]

That still doesn't answer the challenge, it's just a reiteration of your previous statements.

I guess we should deal with the question laying at the foundation of this disagreement: Do you think God is the source of morality?

Of who's morality? Adam's? The Israelites? If I say yes then this begs the obvious question of their disobedience. If God dictated to them morality but they obviously didn't pay it any attention then God can't have been said to have dictated their own morality, can I? They decided upon their own. Who then, the Christians? The same would most likely apply.

If morality changes because it is dictated to a society in any given time and or place how can God be the source of morality? If you think homosexuality is moral and God doesn't how can you say your morality is a source from God?

Haha, so you don't even really know whether slavery is right or wrong?

[Sighs] I think that slavery is wrong. I know that other people in other times didn't.

If your book can't even explain that, why should I pay any attention to it?

Then don't.

He gave us free will but told us not to murder. He gave us free will and made it really clear that dudes weren't supposed to kiss.

He gave us free will then supported the institution of slavery.

Your argument is completely incoherent. Do you think reading the Bible will give a person information on how to behave correctly? And is that information complete or must one find another source?

My argument is? I don't even think you know what my argument is, I think you are simply, in words, burning me in effigy - a response to your hatred of apostate Christianity's unscriptural influence on your society. I think that is what most of you are doing in response to anything I say.

You really need to stop using that site. It often makes the other side's case better than it's own.

"There are a couple reasons why pedophilia isn't often specifically mentioned in the Bible. First of all, because homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex were all against the law, which would make most cases of pedophilia against the law."

Hmm, doesn't the prohibition against adultery and pre-marital sex also obviate the need to discuss the evils of homosexuality? Yet they go into great detail about that.

Not really.

[Simon39759]

It's... interesting... that some argument come up when, in the same breath, Christianists apologetics like to claim they (and only them) have an objective moral system... (I know that David does not say that, however, but it is a common 'arguement' used by Christianists).

[Elizabeth I]

There's no reason to think the sex was consensual. She's a slave, she's property, she has no bargaining power. What makes you think that Hagar really really wanted to have sex with Abraham?

Oh yeah, because every random pairing of slave and owner = mutual sexual attraction between slave and owner. Do you honestly believe that in 100% of cases of masters having sex with their slaves it was a consensual act? I know you're not big on bringing modern sensibilities into things, but nowadays we recognize there is no real consent when the power is so unevenly balanced between the parties.

And when the victors of war gather up 100s of virgins for their wives or concubines, it was all consensual. Riiiiiiiight. Nothing makes a woman hotter for a man than being scooped up as his own personal spoil of war.


So when it says, "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. , he's just talking about a prophecy where he'll be ordering the raping of the wives, but that he won't actually be the one taking the wives out to be raped?

I don't get it.

You obviously don't get it either, if you're claiming that every act of men claiming concubines or being ordered to have sex with their brother's widow or their slaves is a consensual act. It's rape. And the laws of Deutoronomy specifically talk about rape, but you'll probably explain how it's for a rape victim's own protection that she must marry her rapist. After all, a powerful law-giving god couldn't possibly think of a better scenario which involved punishment for the man instead of continual torture of the woman.


I always learn a lot about a person when I hear how they interpret their god's words.

Damn, girl (or boy:)), you're good!

[TraneWreck]

Of who's morality? Adam's? The Israelites? If I say yes then this begs the obvious question of their disobedience. If God dictated to them morality but they obviously didn't pay it any attention then God can't have been said to have dictated their own morality, can I? They decided upon their own. Who then, the Christians? The same would most likely apply.

If morality changes because it is dictated to a society in any given time and or place how can God be the source of morality? If you think homosexuality is moral and God doesn't how can you say your morality is a source from God?

So does the Bible contain rules from God, or from people?



[Sighs] I think that slavery is wrong. I know that other people in other times didn't.

That wasn't precisely the question. THe question is whether God thinks slavery is wrong. Does he?



Then don't.

Don't worry.



My argument is? I don't even think you know what my argument is, I think you are simply, in words, burning me in effigy - a response to your hatred of apostate Christianity's unscriptural influence on your society. I think that is what most of you are doing in response to anything I say.

If I have your argument wrong, feel free to explain it. But whining about people getting your argument wrong doesn't help anything.



Not really.

It does so in the exact way adultery and premarital sex obviate the need for specific prohibitions on child molestation according to the website you cited.

[Darth Rotor]

"Look, by modern standards, Joseph himself would have been classified a pedophile, since he married a child when he was a grown man, but we all know he couldn't really be a pedophile, because he was Joseph and Joseph was a good guy, even by our modern standards."
Well, no, not a pedophile, but perhaps a statutory rapist.
What a great reason for the bible not condemning pedophilia. Of course, the commandments don't prohibit concubines or rape either. You're just not allowed to have sex with another man's wife; it says nothing about married men raping other unmarried women. (Er, excuse me, by raping, I really meant "pursuing other consensual sexual relations with their human female property or randomly selected virgin women from other tribes.") :rolleyes:
The age of consent being raised is a relatively recent phenomenon, and not quite universal across the globe.

For whatever reasons, the base Western (arbitrary) decision is that the age of consent should be 14/16/18 -- pick a year, or a state, the number will change in the US. (I'll let other nationals discuss what has transpired in their nations within the last century, a few years back a Canadian friend stunned me with "it's fourteen in Canada" which I am not sure of as of this writing).

Where to set this age of consent is a reflection of a societal change. Referring to somebody who marries a fifteen year old as a pedophile is damned foolishness, and very narrow minded.

Let me offer you an example.

I work with a lady in her early 60's. She is originally from outside of San Antonio. She was married at the age of fifteen. She had to get permission of her parents to marry at that age, but having gotten it, the marriage was legal. The marriage lasted over 30 years, and produced one child. She and her husband adopted another. The marriage broke up years later over, you guessed it, infidelity.

Her ex passed away recently from cancer. She grieved, even though they had parted with much rancor.

What I read in your post puts appears to set him up as a pedophile.

This makes no sense.

A different example, where a charge of statutory rape might have been competently made, but not pedophilia.

My sister's youngest daughter liked to screw as a teenager. At one point, she did some screwing with a man who was twenty, or twenty-one) . She became pregnant. When she had the baby, my brother in law and I did some back of the napkin arithmetic, and realized that she had conceived under the age of 16. This was no big surprise, as she'd been sexually active for quite some time before that. (But with boys in school) .

Technically, someone could have brought charges against that young man/sperm donator/numbskull, but the family was not interested. IMO it helped that, unasked for, he and his parents ponied up child support and have, to their credit, kept it coming ever since. (More his parents than him, as he doesn't earn much money). It is my opinion, knowing the two personalities involved, that she was probably the sexual innovator between the two, not that it matters in a strict reading of the law.

What would have been the benefit to society for him to go to jail, I wonder, other than for the satisfaction of a few of us who wanted to cave in his head with a shovel? Dumbarse, never heard about wrapping the rascal.

As it works out now, he's still out, still paying some of the child support from his modest job, and the taxpayer isn't paying for his room and board. Imperfect, but it worked well enough. My sister in law adopted the little girl and raised her until her daughter got old enough to do so. (Passed the torch last year). More to the point, her and my wife's oldest sister offered to adopt the baby before it was born, knowing all the sordid details behind the whole story. Her opinion: not the baby's fault for being born. Her husband was fully on board with that course of action, though it was an option not pursued.

Pedophile? No. By strict rule a perp in a statutory rape? Yes. But I understand why charges were not pressed. (BTW, in our county, there are oodles of underage preganancies. Something in the water, I suppose, my daughter in eighth grade had three class mates who were pregnant, one for the second time).

I'd like to see less use of "pedophile" in discussions regarding underage sex, since the age in underage has a sliding scale.

As to the law, I can't find the ref that is reliable, but SC Justice Ginsburg had attributed to her a remark that the age of consent could be set at 12. Biologically, it's a tenable position ... but as with age of consent in a lot of ways, an arbitrary social rule/reason is adopted that a given society can live with. As a father of a teenaged girl, I held it to be my wife's and my responsibility to teach our daughter well. We did what we could, but what it boils down to is our daughter simply exercised good judgment.

Aside: The allusion bugs me, as Ginsburg is no idiot, so I looked a bit. An old Slate article points out that it was taken more than a bit out of context, and Lindsey Graham was being less than honest in his political attack.

In the course of making this point, Ginsburg's 1974 paper praises and then quotes a draft Senate bill that never became law. The proposed law has, she writes, "a definition of rape that, in substance, conforms to the equality principle." She then quotes the bill's language:

"A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."

Yes, the language Ginsburg quotes with approval puts the age of consent at 12, which does seem awfully young. But she isn't addressing herself to the age issue; she's addressing herself to the gender issue. Is her praise meant to constitute an endorsement of the entire bill? Of course not. Ginsburg makes this explicit in a footnote in which she complains that even this language "retains use of the masculine pronoun to cover individuals of both sexes," which at the very least is confusing if it's intended to outlaw statutory (and other) rape by women, too.

http://www.slate.com/id/2126491/


DR

[TraneWreck]

Click on "Email". ;)

Haha, well, that makes sense then.

[Cainkane1]

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
Are you saying he isn't?

[David Henson]

Haha, well, that makes sense then.

What about the Email?

[TraneWreck]

What about the Email?

That's your webpage. Or it's made by another guy named Dave Henson.

It's not a big deal, I just thought you were citing another authority.

[David Henson]

Are you saying he isn't?

Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.

[David Henson]

That's your webpage. Or it's made by another guy named Dave Henson.

It's not a big deal, I just thought you were citing another authority.

Wow. You guys catch on real fast, don't you. Notice my sig?

[Mister Agenda]

Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.

Kudos to you, David, I have to give you props, usually WE're the ones to bring up those verses, only to have them casually dismissed. I'm at work (sorry, Boss) and can't look up scriptures right now, but I think there is a verse describing God as all-knowing.

A Christian (JW?) who isn't attached to this tri-omni stuff loses an all-powerful God in return for one that can have a coherent definition.

[Mister Agenda]

Also, in prioritizing which posts you respond to, David, I suggest you go after the most substantive. I think you will find that most of us will be sympathetic to your out-numbered position if you tackle the most difficult stuff and don't get to every single other response or query.

[I Ratant]

Like I told Tim, show me where my redacted version of the Bible indicates that Jehovah God is omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.

However, the point as you presented it doesn't even require that He is those things because the people of the society in which we are considering are obviously not.
.
Do be more precise.
"Russell began publishing the magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, highlighting his interpretations of biblical chronology..."

[Sun Countess]

Well, no, not a pedophile, but perhaps a statutory rapist.

The age of consent being raised is a relatively recent phenomenon, and not quite universal across the globe.

For whatever reasons, the base Western (arbitrary) decision is that the age of consent should be 14/16/18 -- pick a year, or a state, the number will change in the US. (I'll let other nationals discuss what has transpired in their nations within the last century, a few years back a Canadian friend stunned me with "it's fourteen in Canada" which I am not sure of as of this writing).

Where to set this age of consent is a reflection of a societal change. Referring to somebody who marries a fifteen year old as a pedophile is damned foolishness, and very narrow minded.

I think you misread my intentions there. I put my statement in quotes to show it was a paraphrase of that website's argument about why the bible itself doesn't proscribe pedophilia. Repeated here:
Secondly, it was not uncommon for a young maiden, such as Mary for example, at the age of 15 or 16, to be married to a much older man, like Joseph for example, at the age of about 32. By modern day American standards that would be classified as pedophilia.
I don't agree that the arument is a good one. Not only because I wouldn't classify Joseph as a pedophile, but because they're saying the bible couldn't make laws specifically against pedophilia since some of their top guys might be accused of breaking said law.

And to clarify, yes, Canada previously set its age of consent to 14, and has only very recently raised it to 16. Thankfully. Because I don't think 14 year old girls can consent to sex with men in their 50s. Some are still prepubescent. (Sixteen is still pretty iffy in most cases, but it's a move in the right direction.)

What I read in your post puts appears to set him up as a pedophile. Again, a miscommunication on my part or misread on yours. My quote was purposely put in quotation marks to show that they weren't my thoughts but a sarcastic paraphrase of an apologist argument. I even tucked in an eyeroll at the end, so you must have been reading quickly. ;) Hopefully no harm, no foul. :)

[Third Eye Open]

Well, no, not a pedophile, but perhaps a statutory rapist.

The age of consent being raised is a relatively recent phenomenon, and not quite universal across the globe.

For whatever reasons, the base Western (arbitrary) decision is that the age of consent should be 14/16/18 -- pick a year, or a state, the number will change in the US. (I'll let other nationals discuss what has transpired in their nations within the last century, a few years back a Canadian friend stunned me with "it's fourteen in Canada" which I am not sure of as of this writing).

Where to set this age of consent is a reflection of a societal change. Referring to somebody who marries a fifteen year old as a pedophile is damned foolishness, and very narrow minded.

Let me offer you an example.

I work with a lady in her early 60's. She is originally from outside of San Antonio. She was married at the age of fifteen. She had to get permission of her parents to marry at that age, but having gotten it, the marriage was legal. The marriage lasted over 30 years, and produced one child. She and her husband adopted another. The marriage broke up years later over, you guessed it, infidelity.

Her ex passed away recently from cancer. She grieved, even though they had parted with much rancor.

What I read in your post puts appears to set him up as a pedophile.

This makes no sense.

A different example, where a charge of statutory rape might have been competently made, but not pedophilia.

My sister's youngest daughter liked to screw as a teenager. At one point, she did some screwing with a man who was twenty, or twenty-one) . She became pregnant. When she had the baby, my brother in law and I did some back of the napkin arithmetic, and realized that she had conceived under the age of 16. This was no big surprise, as she'd been sexually active for quite some time before that. (But with boys in school) .

Technically, someone could have brought charges against that young man/sperm donator/numbskull, but the family was not interested. IMO it helped that, unasked for, he and his parents ponied up child support and have, to their credit, kept it coming ever since. (More his parents than him, as he doesn't earn much money). It is my opinion, knowing the two personalities involved, that she was probably the sexual innovator between the two, not that it matters in a strict reading of the law.

What would have been the benefit to society for him to go to jail, I wonder, other than for the satisfaction of a few of us who wanted to cave in his head with a shovel? Dumbarse, never heard about wrapping the rascal.

As it works out now, he's still out, still paying some of the child support from his modest job, and the taxpayer isn't paying for his room and board. Imperfect, but it worked well enough. My sister in law adopted the little girl and raised her until her daughter got old enough to do so. (Passed the torch last year). More to the point, her and my wife's oldest sister offered to adopt the baby before it was born, knowing all the sordid details behind the whole story. Her opinion: not the baby's fault for being born. Her husband was fully on board with that course of action, though it was an option not pursued.

Pedophile? No. By strict rule a perp in a statutory rape? Yes. But I understand why charges were not pressed. (BTW, in our county, there are oodles of underage preganancies. Something in the water, I suppose, my daughter in eighth grade had three class mates who were pregnant, one for the second time).

I'd like to see less use of "pedophile" in discussions regarding underage sex, since the age in underage has a sliding scale.

As to the law, I can't find the ref that is reliable, but SC Justice Ginsburg had attributed to her a remark that the age of consent could be set at 12. Biologically, it's a tenable position ... but as with age of consent in a lot of ways, an arbitrary social rule/reason is adopted that a given society can live with. As a father of a teenaged girl, I held it to be my wife's and my responsibility to teach our daughter well. We did what we could, but what it boils down to is our daughter simply exercised good judgment.

Aside: The allusion bugs me, as Ginsburg is no idiot, so I looked a bit. An old Slate article points out that it was taken more than a bit out of context, and Lindsey Graham was being less than honest in his political attack.



http://www.slate.com/id/2126491/


DR

AOC in the Vatican is 12. Lowest AOC of any country/state that has one.

[Hokulele]

What you are doing isn't a comparison of morality what you are doing is holding God accountable to your own moral standards.


Why shouldn't I?

[JJM 777]

Could you give a scripture where "ish et re'ehu" is used?
Any place where the English version says "each other", "one another" etc.

Ishshah literally means female man

Or female human person, when "ish" means male human person.

I don't expect this study of Hebrew language (as used by the writers of the Hebrew Scripture) to lead us anywhere anyway.

Explain this, please? The name was replaced with the generic term lord, not mispelled intentionally.
Many (if not most?) modern academics (notably excluding religious Jews) assume that the original spelling of YHWH was Yahweh (based on early transliterations of the word into Greek and other languages), which appears to be causative (HiF'iL) singular 3. masculine of the verb "to be / to exist" and thus would mean "He causes existence". The less meaningful forms "Yehowah" and "Yehowih" are supposed to be intentionally mis-vowelized by the Jewish Masorets of post-Temple era:
- to prevent anyone from accidentally spelling aloud the Name (which has been forbidden in Judaism for more than 2000 years)
- to guide the reader to pronounce Yehowah as "Adonay" (but then why "e" and not "a" under the first consonant? because Adonay begins with a very short "half a", and Hebrew grammar forces using "half e" instead of "half a" when the preceding consonant is Yod)
- to guide the reader to pronounce Yehowih as "Elohim" (see any OT verse where YHWH occurs immediately after the word Adonay, mostly in the Latter Prophets I guess, try to google for Adonay YHWH or Adonai Elohim or something)

The religion we are discussing? Religion has nothing to do with it.
I am aware of this inner circle terminology:
- "religion" = customs and practices invented by humans, void of the presence of God
- "faith" = service of God in Truth and in Holy Spirit

Any common dictionary calls both of these as "religion", but let us not stumble into that and simply change "religion" into "faith" in my previous question.


-----


PARENTAL ADVISORY to all participants of this thread. DON'T USE the term "religion", it means a different thing for you and for David Henson. Use the term "FAITH" instead, so both parties will interpret the meaning (approximately) in the same way.

[Foster Zygote]

Why shouldn't I?

Yeah, this god condones slavery and genocide. Why shouldn't I judge it to be immoral?

[laca]

Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.

That's great. So now we are left with a vague idea of a 'god' that's neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.

Why call it a 'god' then? Why worship it? How can you assert that it cannot lie? It certainly did lie to 'his people' according to the Bible. How can we know then that it's even capable of creating the Universe?

Once your god looses those properties, it's not a god anymore. It's just another being like the rest of us. Would you worship a human? A really great human? I didn't think so...

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Women played an important part throughout Bible history, as judges, prophetesses and as an extremely important part of the early Christian ministerial effort.And yet they are almost never important enough to have been named in the Bible. I can't find that reference but I found this one:

The worth of a woman: the Bible vs. the Quran (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/worth-of-woman-bible-vs-quran.html)..praised be Jesus and Muhammed (peanut butter and jelly be upon them)! The Bible and the Quran agree: a woman is worth half as much as a man.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's interesting that, biologically, men are really "male females". We have nipples because the basic human body plan has nipples. That means female.

Also, it's brutally clear from evolution that males of species evolved from hermaphroditic species. Somewhere along the line, someone failed to be impregnable, but still managed to pass along their genes, of course, with the partner doing the heavy lifting. Whether the "dandy-ification" of the male started before this physical inability to bear children, or after, I have no idea.


And yes, human males, like those of almost all other species, are the dandies, with their manes (AKA beard + hair) and, yes, their beer bellies. Oh, and their wars for dominance.I have no clue when sexual reproduction evolved, but I wouldn't leave out the part where single celled organisms developed the means of inserting DNA into unrelated organisms which then incorporated the DNA into their own before dividing.

In other words, there may be more of a chicken and egg argument here than you realize.

[Simon39759]

Most bacteria do have sexual reproduction.
Sure, they are only exchanging a small part of their genome, but still, this is only a matter of degree.
Sex is old.

It also seem to evolve independently in various lineage, sometime being reinvented by organism whose ancestors "forgot" it, suggesting a tremendous evolutionary value under the right circumstances.
Sex is powerful.

[Darth Rotor]

Thankfully. Because I don't think 14 year old girls can consent to sex with men in their 50s.
That isn't the most common pairing up, is it? Why did you choose that age split?

Also, thanks for clearing up how I read your post. Much appreciated.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

AOC in the Vatican is 12. Lowest AOC of any country/state that has one.

Why does that not surprise me? They are medieval through and through, it seems. :p

[Darth Rotor]

Why shouldn't I?

Simple:

If God does not exist, you are wasting your time with mental masturbation.

If God does exist, the power relationship between you and God is so unequal that it renders your attempt at judgment ludicrous. The number of orders of magnitude in the disparity is a bit larger than I can grok on short notice.

Imagine an amoeba attempting to hold you to its standards, of any sort. Such an exercise is irrelevant.

The more interesting path of exploration is figuring out how applicable this moral standard is, which you and many others do here with some frequency, and how well humans have discerned, or not, this moral framework.

DR

[John Jones]

If God does exist, the power relationship between you and God is so unequal that it renders your attempt at judgment ludicrous. The number of orders of magnitude in the disparity is a bit larger than I can grok on short notice.

That would seem to contradict the claims in Genesis that god made man in his own image, and that eating of the tree of knowledge gave man the knowledge of good and evil.

[I Ratant]

That would seem to contradict the claims in Genesis that god made man in his own image, and that eating of the tree of knowledge gave man the knowledge of good and evil.
.
Wanna bet you can find more contradictions? :)
And I for one am quite displeased with my godlike image!
30 frikkin' pounds that won't go away!

[Simon39759]

God sure like hid ethereal donuts...

[Brainache]

.
Wanna bet you can find more contradictions? :)
And I for one am quite displeased with my godlike image!
30 frikkin' pounds that won't go away!

I suggest a diet of locusts and wild honey. Sweet and crunchy as God intended!

[iknownothing]

Imagine an amoeba attempting to hold you to its standards, of any sort. Such an exercise is irrelevant.

If I lectured the amoeba on morality and gave it a handy book as its moral guide, then the amoeba would be within its rights to point out where my behavior falls short and where there are inconsistencies in the book.

[Sun Countess]

That isn't the most common pairing up, is it? Why did you choose that age split?

Also, thanks for clearing up how I read your post. Much appreciated.

DR

The age divide may not be a common one, but it helped to show how the lower AOC was being abused locally. The fundamentalist mormon polygamous compound in eastern BC, which has ties to the polygamous compounds in Utah and Arizona, used to transport 14 and 15 year old American girls to marry off to the middle-aged male leaders.

Of course, there were also problems across the country with pimps recruiting very young, very naive child prostitutes, and the parents' hands were tied, since neither prostitution nor sex with 14-year old girls was illegal.

And....you're welcome. :)

[Morrigan]

I think age difference should be taken into account. A 17-year-old shouldn't be punished as a rapist for having sex with a willing 14-year old. I'm not sure what's the current status of the law, though. Do they take age difference into account?

Back on topic; this thread is both funny and sad. The warped justifications for the mass murder and rape in the Old Testament are hysterical. Even more so the assertion that sex between a slave and an owner was "probably consensual". Are you for real??

[TimCallahan]

I still have no response from Dave as to whether he sees God as omnipotent and omniscient or if he thinks God is limited in certain ways.

[laca]

I still have no response from Dave as to whether he sees God as omnipotent and omniscient or if he thinks God is limited in certain ways.

Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.

There you go. :)

[TimCallahan]

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

Okay, fine. So what the hell is this about?

[Hokulele]

Simple:

If God does not exist, you are wasting your time with mental masturbation.


In some cases, this is true. However, when other people are insisting that not only does God exist, but they know what he wants me to do, why shouldn't I use what reason and moral sense I do have to determine whether or not this God-being, as described by them, is moral, immoral, or amoral before I decide whether or not to agree with those people?

If God does exist, the power relationship between you and God is so unequal that it renders your attempt at judgment ludicrous. The number of orders of magnitude in the disparity is a bit larger than I can grok on short notice.

Imagine an amoeba attempting to hold you to its standards, of any sort. Such an exercise is irrelevant.


But I am not an amoeba. Even if I were, why should it matter what the power relationship is before rendering judgement? The United States government and the forces it can command are far more powerful than I, and yet I am encouraged to judge various parts of it regularly.

In addition, if the power disparity alone means I cannot render personal judgement on a being, that is abuse IMHO. It is rather like a teacher taking advantage of the power disparity between him/herself and his/her students to perform any act he/she chooses and reject any judgement rendered by said student.

The more interesting path of exploration is figuring out how applicable this moral standard is, which you and many others do here with some frequency, and how well humans have discerned, or not, this moral framework.

DR


Agreed, in the sense that some moral standard must be defined before God can be held accountable to it.

[Mark6]

I think age difference should be taken into account. A 17-year-old shouldn't be punished as a rapist for having sex with a willing 14-year old. I'm not sure what's the current status of the law, though. Do they take age difference into account?
Which country are you in? In US, age of consent varies among states, and some state's laws take the age difference into account, while others do not. It varies quite a bit.

[Morrigan]

Canada.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

*

Dear David Henson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) Recently an argument with a neighbor(over the odoriferous bull sacrifice) resulted in a struggle that, after a few minutes of which, I managed to get him in a pretty good headlock. His wife after seeing his predicament ran over an grabbed my privates (Deut 25:11-12) with such force that I was out of breath for a good while! Should I cut off her hand at the wrist or should I aim for a point nearer the elbow?

g) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

h) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

i) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

j) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

k) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.





*Most of the contents originally written by Kent Ashcraft

[Complexity]

The Hebrew term for... (snipped for silliness)


Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about the hebrew word for anything.

Nothing but trouble and delusion.

Welsh, now that's interesting. Greek, without question.

Hebrew? Yawn.

[David Henson]

Okay, fine. So what the hell is this about?

Isn't it obvious? God isn't omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent or omni anything as far as I am aware. It is a religious idea to avoid having to explain anything would be my guess. Priests get paid and slapped on the back and rape children not answer questions or study.

[John Jones]

Isn't it obvious? God isn't omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent or omni anything as far as I am aware. It is a religious idea to avoid having to explain anything would be my guess. Priests get paid and slapped on the back and rape children not answer questions or study.

Do you have some less obvious point?

[David Henson]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about the hebrew word for anything.

Nothing but trouble and delusion.

Welsh, now that's interesting. Greek, without question.

Hebrew? Yawn.

Edited breaches of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

[David Henson]

*

Dear David Henson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

End of debate? Hmmm . . . in California animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. The Law of Moses was a temporary and imperfect law which ended with Jesus, the Christ. It applied to ancient Israelites up to Christ. Homosexuality was one of the few things that were continued but only, of course, to the Christian congregation.

The Christian, like the ancient Israelite, had the choice of either leaving Israel or the Congregation or abandoning the practice of their sexual preference.

[Complexity]

I wish he were more fun to play with. He doesn't do this very well.

[Complexity]

(snipped for silliness)

Homosexuality was one of the few things that were continued but only, of course, to the Christian congregation.

(snipped for silliness)


It is like shooting fish in a barrel...

[Hokulele]

The Law of Moses was a temporary and imperfect law which ended with Jesus, the Christ.


Then why did you quote Exodus in the OP?

[Zep]

The Law of Moses was a temporary and imperfect law which ended with Jesus, the Christ.So we can ditch that whole Ten Commandments stuff now? Because the Christian church sure has! They have hated their fellow man and raped and killed and plundered and coveted and stolen just as much as the next despotic regime you care to name. Still doing it today, as a matter of fact.

[David Henson]

Then why did you quote Exodus in the OP?

Because I was talking about how the people in Bible times thought.

[David Henson]

So we can ditch that whole Ten Commandments stuff now? Because the Christian church sure has! They have hated their fellow man and raped and killed and plundered and coveted and stolen just as much as the next despotic regime you care to name. Still doing it today, as a matter of fact.

Yes, and the ancient Israelites were no model citizens either.

[Zep]

Yes, and the ancient Israelites were no model citizens either.Glad you agree.

Now, perhaps time for you to heed Christ's words: Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from mine.

[David Henson]

Glad you agree.

Now, perhaps time for you to heed Christ's words: Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from mine.

Oh, now the Bible is good for you to use against me? Anyway, I was just going to leave the mote in yours until you mentioned the log in mine. What log?

[Zep]

Oh, now the Bible is good for you to use against me? Anyway, I was just going to leave the mote in yours until you mentioned the log in mine. What log?It was good enough for you to try to use against others, apparently. It also appears to be the only book you will take any heed of. I am only trying to limit myself to the simple language that you limit yourself to. ;)

Your log? Deliberate and supercilious ignorance. The worst kind.

[Aquila]

The Hebrew term for woman is ishshah which literally means female man. It can also be rendered wife. The Greek word gyne is likewise either rendered as woman and wife.

Since God is neither male nor female as a spirit is genderless, sexless, and he created both man and woman in his image or likeness, This indicates that certain aspects of the masculine personality as well as the feminine personality are, of course, a reflection of Jehovah God.

Woman was created as a helper for man...

I think you're taking things too literally. Kabbalah, or esoteric Judiasm sees creation as a lightening flash, with the ineffable God (Kether) producing light ("male") and then matter ("female" - the "womb of creation".) Obviously there would be no stuff in the universe without this limiting, condensing factor, so that's the only reason it's called a "helper".

[David Henson]

It was good enough for you to try to use against others, apparently. It also appears to be the only book you will take any heed of. I am only trying to limit myself to the simple language that you limit yourself to. ;)

Your log? Deliberate and supercilious ignorance. The worst kind.

[Laughs] Oh, you mean disagreement! :cool:

[David Henson]

I think you're taking things too literally. Kabbalah, or esoteric Judiasm sees creation as a lightening flash, with the ineffable God (Kether) producing light ("male") and then matter ("female" - the "womb of creation".) Obviously there would be no stuff in the universe without this limiting, condensing factor, so that's the only reason it's called a "helper".

Interesting take on it, thanks for providing it.

[laca]

Yes, and the ancient Israelites were no model citizens either.

So what? That doesn't make it right.

[laca]

[Laughs] Oh, you mean disagreement! :cool:

No, s/he would have said so. S/he said "deliberate and supercilious ignorance", so let's assume s/he meant that.

[devnull]

I'm not here to argue about science; I'm a Bible student, if you can't discuss the Bible and Bible related issues then don't preach science to me instead. Ignore my Bible based posts as I will your science.

BTW - I think you're in the wrong forum.

[dafydd]

Oh, now the Bible is good for you to use against me? Anyway, I was just going to leave the mote in yours until you mentioned the log in mine. What log?

Well,talk about a lack of self-knowledge!

[dafydd]

[Laughs] Oh, you mean disagreement! :cool:

No,a combination of arrogance,superciliousness and pig-ignorance.If you think that's cool,then good luck to you.

[Zep]

[Laughs] Oh, you mean disagreement! :cool:Thereby proving my point.

Seriously, your attempt at wrapping all skeptics in the same strawman to attempt a beatdown on them is pretty pathetic. Even more pathetic when you fail at it repeatedly and as a result get your arse handed to you time and again. And even more pathetic when you still continue to pretend you still have da skillz. That is your delusion, right there.

I can only surmise that you have no intention of upholding any serious discussion at all, disagreements or otherwise. I suspect you are here on false pretenses...like trying to "gain points" as part of some religious mission for "taking it to the atheists where they live". We have seen that before.

[dafydd]

Thereby proving my point.

Seriously, your attempt at wrapping all skeptics in the same strawman to attempt a beatdown on them is pretty pathetic. Even more pathetic when you fail at it repeatedly and as a result get your arse handed to you time and again. And even more pathetic when you still continue to pretend you still have da skillz. That is your delusion, right there.

I can only surmise that you have no intention of upholding any serious discussion at all, disagreements or otherwise. I suspect you are here on false pretenses...like trying to "gain points" as part of some religious mission for "taking it to the atheists where they live". We have seen that before.

I told you he is doing the cyberspace equivalent of JW doing the doors,they have to do that to book their ticket to heaven.I feel sorry for them,they are in for a big disappointment.

[Complexity]

I told you he is doing the cyberspace equivalent of JW doing the doors,they have to do that to book their ticket to heaven.I feel sorry for them,they are in for a big disappointment.


I beg to differ in one small respect - they aren't in for a big disappointment.

When they die, that will be the end. They will never realize that there is nothing more than this life.

In other words, they will die as they lived - smug, ignorant, and arrogant.

We won't have the satisfaction of knowing that they'll realize how wrong they have been.

Of course, they won't be around to annoy us anymore.

Guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[154]

I beg to differ in one small respect - they aren't in for a big disappointment.

When they die, that will be the end. They will never realize that there is nothing more than this life.

In other words, they will die as they lived - smug, ignorant, and arrogant.

We won't have the satisfaction of knowing that they'll realize how wrong they have been.

Of course, they won't be around to annoy us anymore.

Guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Projection.

This is your hope. This is your faith. You believe. You are a very faithful believer.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[Complexity]

Projection.

This is your hope. This is your faith. You believe. You are a very faithful believer.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


Utter twaddle.

Can't you do better than this?

Ignorance is ugly.

[laca]

Projection.

This is your hope. This is your faith. You believe. You are a very faithful believer.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You are wrong. There's no evidence for an afterlife, heaven, any gods, fairies, zombies, Santa, leprechauns, ogres, vampires, etc. Not believing in those is not a faith. It's common sense. It's reality. It's healthy. You might want to try it sometime.

[Darth Rotor]

As far as I know, distillation of alcohol wasn't practiced in that time and place, so the flambé process was a little tough on the soon-to-be-corpse. I prefer my dessert to involve a little less screaming.

Besides, would you trust the recipes from a culture that didn't appreciate bacon?
Yes: I had the chance to go to a small number of food serving establishments in the Middle East, in both Arab countries and in Israel, and in each case found many wonderful foods to eat. It is possible to cook good food without bacon ... but why bother? A bacon shwarma would be awesome!

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I think age difference should be taken into account. A 17-year-old shouldn't be punished as a rapist for having sex with a willing 14-year old. I'm not sure what's the current status of the law, though. Do they take age difference into account?

Back on topic; this thread is both funny and sad. The warped justifications for the mass murder and rape in the Old Testament are hysterical. Even more so the assertion that sex between a slave and an owner was "probably consensual". Are you for real??
Given that very few marriages in that age were consensual, it appears that most were arranged, do you contend that all intercourse within marriage was by default rape?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about the hebrew word for anything.

Oh dear -- you are libable to earn the label anti-Semite if you aren't careful! :jaw-dropp

[zooterkin]

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

Luke 12:5-7 (New King James Version)

5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins?[a] And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

I do have to question why you bother posting on a site devoted to critical thinking, and then refuse to listen when the products of critical thinking are presented. What do you hope to achieve?

[Zep]

He hopes to achieve many Google hits for his website by putting the URL in his sig.

[NoZed Avenger]

So we can ditch that whole Ten Commandments stuff now? Because the Christian church sure has! They have hated their fellow man and raped and killed and plundered and coveted and stolen just as much as the next despotic regime you care to name. Still doing it today, as a matter of fact.

And they don't like squealers.


So watch your back, man. Doubly so if you happen to be a choirboy.

[Cainkane1]

Women are often treated like property in the bible. Sex slaves or some disposable servant or both.

[NoZed Avenger]

Women are often treated like property in the bible. Sex slaves or some disposable servant or both.

Yes, but there is also a possible downside to some of the teachings.

[Foster Zygote]

Projection.

This is your hope. This is your faith. You believe. You are a very faithful believer.
It does not require faith to doubt that for which there is no evidence. If there is a continuation of consciousness after the death of the body, then I will learn this after my body dies. But I doubt that this will be the case.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Yes, faith is belief without any reason for belief. It is an expression of desire or indoctrination. But faith in Christianity is no different than faith in Islam, Hinduism or Scientology.

[I Ratant]

Yes, but there is also a possible downside to some of the teachings.
.
Yes, some of the old ways were too soon cast aside.

[Robin]

Show to me, in scripture, where there is any indication that Jehovah God is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
Omniscience
Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. (NASB ©1995)
Omnipotence
Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."

Revelation 19:1 After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God;

Revelation 19:6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns

They are not hard to find.