PDA

View Full Version : The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine



Pages : [1] 2

Rose
01-27-2013, 04:41 PM
I have just begun to read Thomas Paine's famous book, The Age of Reason and am finding his common sense reasoning to be very refreshing. While he believed in one god that is as far as his adherence to religious doctrines went. As I go through each chapter I'm going to post parts that seem particularly enlightening and relevant to me.


Quotes from chapter 1:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.


I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.


But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.


I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.


All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.


I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.


It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?

Full online book found here: The Age of Reason (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3743/3743-h/3743-h.htm#link2HCH0001)

Rose
01-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Quotes from The Age of Reason (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3743/3743-h/3743-h.htm#link2HCH0002) chapter 2:


Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all...

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it...


It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.


It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

Rose
01-27-2013, 06:25 PM
The Age of Reason (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3743/3743-h/3743-h.htm#link2HCH0002): highlights from chapter 3. Thomas Paine makes an interesting point of saying that the apostle Thomas required evidence for the resurrection in order to believe, so why is everyone else obligated to believe without evidence?



NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

Rose
02-08-2013, 09:15 PM
Here are some more interesting quotes from part 2 (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3743/3743-h/3743-h.htm#link2H_4_0020)of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.



Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation. Of which I will state only one instance:


When the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and murdering excursions, the account goes on as follows (Numbers xxxi. 13): "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, 'Have ye saved all the women alive?' behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, 'kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for Yourselves.'"


Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters.


Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers, one child murdered, another destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an executioner: let any daughter put herself in the situation of those daughters, destined as a prey to the murderers of a mother and a brother, and what will be their feelings? It is in vain that we attempt to impose upon nature, for nature will have her course, and the religion that tortures all her social ties is a false religion.


After this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder taken, and the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the profaneings of priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of crimes. Verse 37, "And the Lord's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen; and the beeves were thirty and six thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was threescore and twelve; and the asses were thirty thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was threescore and one; and the persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was thirty and two." In short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as in many other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read, or for decency to hear; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this chapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand.


People in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!

Craig.Paardekooper
05-26-2014, 08:29 AM
The Mosaic Laws required the sacrifice of pigeons when a woman was deemed unclean during her monthly cycle. Considering that there were over 100,000 women in Israel at the time, this would mean that 100,000 x 12 pigeons had to be killed each year at least.

It is doubtful that such laws are the product of a supremely intelligent God. Rather they seem the words of primitive iron age man - with limited understanding and a primitive world view.

However, it is still possible that God had some influence on the Bible, but it is also probable that human understanding, interpretation and even wilful deceit also had an influence.

When Moses came down from the mountain with those laws, He may have been inspired by God to create a system of justice for his people, but the system Moses created was primitive. In the same way, a father might inspire a child to draw his first picture - but it would be a simple childish picture nonetheless. The people wanted absolute certainty, so Moses and the people attributed the laws to God.

In all cultures, it is a truism that spiritual insight is always filtered and limited by the culture and by the individual, so we SHOULD not be surprised that the Bible is no exception.

Problems only arise when we take an extreme position of denying any divine influence on the Bible, or by making the Bible infallible - both of which are probably lies.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-26-2014, 09:55 AM
The Mosaic Laws required the sacrifice of pigeons when a woman was deemed unclean during her monthly cycle. Considering that there were over 100,000 women in Israel at the time, this would mean that 100,000 x 12 pigeons had to be killed each year at least.

It is doubtful that such laws are the product of a supremely intelligent God. Rather they seem the words of primitive iron age man - with limited understanding and a primitive world view.

However, it is still possible that God had some influence on the Bible, but it is also probable that human understanding, interpretation and even wilful deceit also had an influence.

When Moses came down from the mountain with those laws, He may have been inspired by God to create a system of justice for his people, but the system Moses created was primitive. In the same way, a father might inspire a child to draw his first picture - but it would be a simple childish picture nonetheless. The people wanted absolute certainty, so Moses and the people attributed the laws to God.

In all cultures, it is a truism that spiritual insight is always filtered and limited by the culture and by the individual, so we SHOULD not be surprised that the Bible is no exception.

Problems only arise when we take an extreme position of denying any divine influence on the Bible, or by making the Bible infallible - both of which are probably lies.
Excellent post Craig. You hit the nail on the head. But I wouldn't say that "denying any divine influence on the Bible" is an "extreme position." On the contrary, it seems that should be the default position that any rational person would take towards any "holy book" such as the Quran, Book of Mormon, Vedas, Catholic Bible, Protestant Bible, Jewish Bible, writings of L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

As far as I can tell, there are not really very many good reasons to believe that there was any "divine influence" in the Bible. The numerology is highly questionable, since it involves so much fallacious thinking such as cherry picking and confirmation bias. And even if the patterns are sufficient to imply the conclusion that they were designed, they don't tell us anything about the identity of the designer or his/her/its purposes. The patterns could have been "influenced" any any number of factors. We know it can't be the god declared in the Bible itself because the intelligence and morality of that god fails miserably (as your post rightly notes). Of course, it could be by some other style God (Ground of Being, Cosmic Mind, whatever) or by beings that have greater minds and greater longevity than normal humans who designed it for their own unknown purposes which could be nefarious or benign. Or the patterns could simply be the product of human minds that are accurately described as inventors and detectors of patterns.

CWH
05-26-2014, 11:07 AM
The Mosaic Laws required the sacrifice of pigeons when a woman was deemed unclean during her monthly cycle. Considering that there were over 100,000 women in Israel at the time, this would mean that 100,000 x 12 pigeons had to be killed each year at least.

It is doubtful that such laws are the product of a supremely intelligent God. Rather they seem the words of primitive iron age man - with limited understanding and a primitive world view.

However, it is still possible that God had some influence on the Bible, but it is also probable that human understanding, interpretation and even wilful deceit also had an influence.

When Moses came down from the mountain with those laws, He may have been inspired by God to create a system of justice for his people, but the system Moses created was primitive. In the same way, a father might inspire a child to draw his first picture - but it would be a simple childish picture nonetheless. The people wanted absolute certainty, so Moses and the people attributed the laws to God.

In all cultures, it is a truism that spiritual insight is always filtered and limited by the culture and by the individual, so we SHOULD not be surprised that the Bible is no exception.

Problems only arise when we take an extreme position of denying any divine influence on the Bible, or by making the Bible infallible - both of which are probably lies.

Correction Craig,

The sacrificial animal could be oxen, sheep, goat, pigeons. If they are poor, instead of pigeons, sparrows or even vegetables, oil, grain, wine, salt etc. can also be offered. Funny, every culture and religion even of today offer sacrifices of all sorts to their gods and ancestors for forgiveness, sin offering, blessings, luck, fertllity, good fortunes etc. etc.

Please do your homework ok?.:D

http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/levitsac.html

With respect to the materials used in the sacrifices, they were divided into two classes: the blood sacrifices, in which an animal was killed, and the bloodless offerings, the "meal" (vegetable and mineral) and drink offerings.

Animals offered included oxen, sheep, goats, and turtledoves or young pigeons. The pigeons were used by people who could not afford the more expensive animals (Lev. 5:7; 12:8) and to serve as lesser sin offerings. Both male and female cattle could be offered (Lev. 3:1-6), but among the sheep and goats special prominence was given to the male animal (Num. 15:5 ff; 28:11 ff). The animal had to be at least eight days old (Lev. 22:27; Exo. 22:30), although sheep and goats were usually offered when a year old (Exo. 29:38; Lev. 9:3), and oxen when they were three years old. Any animal offered had to be free from any blemish (Lev. 22:20-24).

Vegetables offered were grain, olive oil, wine, salt, and incense, which was partly vegetable and partly mineral. The grain was offered roasted in the ear or as fine flour, to both of which incense and oil were added (Lev. 2:1-15), or as unleavened bread or biscuits. The bread was either baked in an oven, baked in a pan, or fried in oil; in each case the flour was mixed with oil.

All of the animal and vegetable offerings had to be salted (Lev. 2:13; Eze. 43:24; Mark 9:49). Neither leaven nor honey were allowed in any offering made to God by fire (Lev. 2:13).

The animals and meat offerings selected for sacrifice were from the ordinary food of the Hebrews, in order to express gratitude for blessings bestowed and to pray for continuation of His goodness. As these offerings were the fruit of their life and work, and presenting them showed a consecration to God of their life with all its ability and energy.

God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
05-26-2014, 11:23 AM
The Mosaic Laws required the sacrifice of pigeons when a woman was deemed unclean during her monthly cycle. Considering that there were over 100,000 women in Israel at the time, this would mean that 100,000 x 12 pigeons had to be killed each year at least.

It is doubtful that such laws are the product of a supremely intelligent God. Rather they seem the words of primitive iron age man - with limited understanding and a primitive world view.

However, it is still possible that God had some influence on the Bible, but it is also probable that human understanding, interpretation and even wilful deceit also had an influence.

When Moses came down from the mountain with those laws, He may have been inspired by God to create a system of justice for his people, but the system Moses created was primitive. In the same way, a father might inspire a child to draw his first picture - but it would be a simple childish picture nonetheless. The people wanted absolute certainty, so Moses and the people attributed the laws to God.

In all cultures, it is a truism that spiritual insight is always filtered and limited by the culture and by the individual, so we SHOULD not be surprised that the Bible is no exception.

Problems only arise when we take an extreme position of denying any divine influence on the Bible, or by making the Bible infallible - both of which are probably lies.

Correction Craig,

The sacrificial animal could be oxen, sheep, goat, pigeons. If they are poor, instead of pigeons, sparrows or even vegetables, oil, grain, wine, salt etc. can also be offered. Funny, every culture and religion even of today offer sacrifices of all sorts to their gods and ancestors for forgiveness, sin offering, blessings, luck, fertllity, good fortunes etc. etc.

Please do your homework ok?.:D


Your comments are false and make no sense CWH. Craig was talking specifically about the sacrifice required for women after menstruation. The text specifies "two doves or two young pigeons."

Leviticus 15:28-30 "'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

Please take your own advice, and "do your homework," ok? :p

Richard Amiel McGough
05-26-2014, 11:26 AM
Funny, every culture and religion even of today offer sacrifices of all sorts to their gods and ancestors for forgiveness, sin offering, blessings, luck, fertllity, good fortunes etc. etc.

Yes, the world is filled with superstitious people who blindly follow primitive traditions of blood sacrifice, voodoo, and magic. But thankfully, they are a dying breed.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-26-2014, 11:53 AM
Though the Torah may have been inspired by God, it may not be sufficient to represent God, since it's principles of justice fall short of what we would expect from a God. ie killing pigeons because of the menstrual cycle. Monkeys have a menstrual cycle too, so it seems to be a natural process rather than it being unclean. And even if it were unclean in any way, what would the killing of 1 million pigeons each year achieve?

So it seems that the Torah is not God's exact word. Rather, it is the words of men, perhaps inspired by God.

God may have encouraged Moses to create a system of justice, but Moses formulated the content based on his primitive culture.

Rose
05-26-2014, 12:37 PM
Though the Torah may have been inspired by God, it may not be sufficient to represent God, since it's principles of justice fall short of what we would expect from a God. ie killing pigeons because of the menstrual cycle. Monkeys have a menstrual cycle too, so it seems to be a natural process rather than it being unclean. And even if it were unclean in any way, what would the killing of 1 million pigeons each year achieve?
Hello Craig :yo:

Good observation :thumb: It really doesn't make much sense to think that god created females with a bloody menstrual cycle, and then to declare that it is unclean and in need of more shedding of blood :confused: CRAZY :dizzy:


So it seems that the Torah is not God's exact word. Rather, it is the words of men, perhaps inspired by God.

God may have encouraged Moses to create a system of justice, but Moses formulated the content based on his primitive culture.



If such an interactive god exists, then instead of just encouraging Moses to create a biased, primitive justice system, he should have inspired him to write a true work of justice like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
05-26-2014, 02:11 PM
If such an interactive god exists, then instead of just encouraging Moses to create a biased, primitive justice system, he should have inspired him to write a true work of justice like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!


I would agree with you Rose. However, there is a possibility that God never acts directly in your suggested manner. It may be that he is like a father who encourages a child to draw a picture rather than doing the drawing himself. So he stands back, merely encouraging us to move in the right direction.

In addition to this consideration, we might also consider the possibility that there was a Dark Ages during the 70 generations after Enoch, and during this time God's face was hidden from humanity. There are 70 generations from Enoch to Christ, and it is only towards the end of the 70 generations that we see the emergence of the Axial Age religions - so a light comes to the gentiles.

Today, we speak from an Axial Age perspective - we stand in the light of the Gentiles, and the previous age of darkness seems dark by comparison.


Enoch 3013 B.C. ------555555 days ------Moses 1492 B.C. ------555555 days------Christ 30 A.D.

70 generations totalling 1111111 days from the translation of Enoch until the resurrection of Christ, and at the very centre - the Passover.

During this Dark Age there was only the language of retribution, of blood and of sacrifice. It seems like a nightmare, and perhaps it was - the after effects of something so terrible that it had caused God to send the Flood and punish the angels for 70 generations - and plunge our world into darkness for that amount of time.

David M
05-26-2014, 04:24 PM
The Mosaic Laws required the sacrifice of pigeons when a woman was deemed unclean during her monthly cycle. Considering that there were over 100,000 women in Israel at the time, this would mean that 100,000 x 12 pigeons had to be killed each year at least.
Hello Craig
Would you please quote the whole passage relating to this and explain the passage. I know Richard has replied to Cheow and quoted Leviticus 15:28-30

Out of interest, I quickly looked up the passage and I do not read it as the woman has to offer two pigeons every month resulting from her menstrual cycle.

In particular explain verse 25; And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. That does not sound like a normal menstrual cycle to me.

It sounds to me that an "issue" is more than the normal blood discharge that only lasts for a few days and is not excessive. Think of the woman healed by Jesus who had had an issue of blood for 12 years. That was obviously a serious condition beyond normal menstruation.

If you do consider any small amount of blood discharge as an "issue of blood", then you have to take into account all the women that did not have a discharge every month, which would reduce the numbers you have quoted.

However, the issue of blood sounds like an extreme amount of blood beyond the normal 2 - 7 days of separation during the menstrual cycle in which small amounts of blood are discharged together with other mucous tissue.

Verse 28 again specifically mentions the "issue"; But if she be cleansed of her issue, This is not referring to the small discharges during the time of her separation.

Whilst she was separated during her menstrual cycle and she was regarded as unclean, if she had a continuing issue of blood outside this period, she was considered to continue to be unclean. It was for that extended period caused by the issue of blood that once she was cleansed and remained clean for 7 days, then she was to offer two pigeons.

If you read this passage differently to me, then please give a full explanation of the words used.

All the best
David

Rose
05-26-2014, 05:55 PM
I would agree with you Rose. However, there is a possibility that God never acts directly in your suggested manner. It may be that he is like a father who encourages a child to draw a picture rather than doing the drawing himself. So he stands back, merely encouraging us to move in the right direction.

In addition to this consideration, we might also consider the possibility that there was a Dark Ages during the 70 generations after Enoch, and during this time God's face was hidden from humanity. There are 70 generations from Enoch to Christ, and it is only towards the end of the 70 generations that we see the emergence of the Axial Age religions - so a light comes to the gentiles.

Today, we speak from an Axial Age perspective - we stand in the light of the Gentiles, and the previous age of darkness seems dark by comparison.


Enoch 3013 B.C. ------555555 days ------Moses 1492 B.C. ------555555 days------Christ 30 A.D.

70 generations totalling 1111111 days from the translation of Enoch until the resurrection of Christ, and at the very centre - the Passover.

During this Dark Age there was only the language of retribution, of blood and of sacrifice. It seems like a nightmare, and perhaps it was - the after effects of something so terrible that it had caused God to send the Flood and punish the angels for 70 generations - and plunge our world into darkness for that amount of time.

Hello Craig

If a person is to believe that god sent a flood cleanse the earth of wickedness, then one must also believe that god does intervene directly in the lives of humans. It can't be both ways, god either participates in human life, or is out of the picture and lets nature take its course. From the looks of things it appears that if there is a god, he is out of the picture entirely and lets nature take its course.

Take care,
Rose

David M
05-27-2014, 12:54 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
I would agree with you Rose. However, there is a possibility that God never acts directly in your suggested manner. It may be that he is like a father who encourages a child to draw a picture rather than doing the drawing himself. So he stands back, merely encouraging us to move in the right direction.

James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.



Hello Craig

If a person is to believe that god sent a flood cleanse the earth of wickedness, then one must also believe that god does intervene directly in the lives of humans. It can't be both ways, god either participates in human life, or is out of the picture and lets nature take its course. From the looks of things it appears that if there is a god, he is out of the picture entirely and lets nature take its course.

Take care,
Rose

Dan 4:17 to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.


The two quotes above show that God is active in different ways.

Mystykal
05-27-2014, 02:58 AM
Hello Craig

If a person is to believe that god sent a flood cleanse the earth of wickedness, then one must also believe that god does intervene directly in the lives of humans. It can't be both ways, god either participates in human life, or is out of the picture and lets nature take its course. From the looks of things it appears that if there is a god, he is out of the picture entirely and lets nature take its course.

Take care,
Rose


If a person is to believe that god sent a flood cleanse the earth of wickedness, then one must also believe that god does intervene directly in the lives of humans. It can't be both ways, god either participates in human life, or is out of the picture and lets nature take its course. From the looks of things it appears that if there is a god, he is out of the picture entirely and lets nature take its course.
But then we must know that in Biblical times there were those who did not believe that GOD would intervene either....

2 Peter 3:1-131 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

Matthew 24:48
But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;...."

Matthew38:24:
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Matthew 24:39
And knew not vntill the Flood came, and tooke them all away: so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be.
- King James Version (1611)

and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
- American Standard Version (1901)


So the flood story along with the Sodom story are "evidence" that GOD does visit earth and that GOD does act in the affairs of humans.

Namaste,

Mystykal

CWH
05-27-2014, 10:15 AM
Your comments are false and make no sense CWH. Craig was talking specifically about the sacrifice required for women after menstruation. The text specifies "two doves or two young pigeons."

Leviticus 15:28-30 "'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

Please take your own advice, and "do your homework," ok? :p
Bodily discharges and diseases were considered as unclean and were classified under the category of sin. Sin offerings were based on affordability. if they can afford a lamb or oxen as offerings, fine, but if they cannot afford even pigeons, Merciful God allows them to use other means of offerings such as flour to atone for their sins:

Leviticus 15:28*“‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29*On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30*The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Leviticus 5:11*“‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

Further more sparrows, cheaper than pigeons, can also be used as sin offerings.(Matthew 10:29 and Leviticus 14:5)

Craig is talking nonsense about killing a million pigeons to atone for the menstruations of 100,000 israelites women per year as there were other means of offering sin offerings not necessary pigeons. And some people agrees with him.

That's why I said, Craig needs to do his homework.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
05-27-2014, 03:22 PM
Bodily discharges and diseases were considered as unclean and were classified under the category of sin. Sin offerings were based on affordability. if they can afford a lamb or oxen as offerings, fine, but if they cannot afford even pigeons, Merciful God allows them to use other means of offerings such as flour to atone for their sins:

Leviticus 15:28*“‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29*On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30*The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Leviticus 5:11*“‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

Further more sparrows, cheaper than pigeons, can also be used as sin offerings.(Matthew 10:29 and Leviticus 14:5)

Craig is talking nonsense about killing a million pigeons to atone for the menstruations of 100,000 israelites women per year as there were other means of offering sin offerings not necessary pigeons. And some people agrees with him.

That's why I said, Craig needs to do his homework.

God Bless.:pray:

The substitute flour and oil offering is ONLY for those who cannot afford to offer the pigeons or doves! So, if all the women could afford pigeons and doves, then that is what they are required to give. Craig is perfectly correct in stating what he did, you are the one talking nonsense!

It's pretty crazy when you stop and think about the Biblegod requiring a bloody sin offering for the natural functioning of the human body. :dizzy: Just more proof that the Bible was written from the minds of superstitious primitive men.

CWH
05-28-2014, 04:24 AM
The substitute flour and oil offering is ONLY for those who cannot afford to offer the pigeons or doves! So, if all the women could afford pigeons and doves, then that is what they are required to give. Craig is perfectly correct in stating what he did, you are the one talking nonsense!

It's pretty crazy when you stop and think about the Biblegod requiring a bloody sin offering for the natural functioning of the human body. :dizzy: Just more proof that the Bible was written from the minds of superstitious primitive men.
Based on the normal distribution curve, tell me how many can afford pigeons for sin offerings? The chances are only about 50% to 60%, the other 20% to 25% will be able to afford more than pigeons and the other 20% to 25% will be too poor to be able to afford pigeons for sin offerings. The purpose of sin offering is based on affordabilty so that everyone contributed to the sin offerings to seek pardon and forgiveness of sin. The offerings will then be shared among all so that everyone poor and rich, could eat and enjoy the pardon from the sin offerings. This is also to celebrate the forgiveness of sins. So Craig is talking nonsense to the million of pigeons needed for the sin offeringss per year. The amount of pigeons for sin offerings were far less and there were other birds such as sparrows and turtle doves as alternatives to pigeons for the sin offerings. God sees all uncleanliness from body discharges as potential sources of diseases which may harm self and others and thus sinful.

Body discharges are considered as potentilally infectious; that's how diseases are spread. And during the time of Moses, there were no bactericidal solutions to kill the germs that the body discharges may harbor and thus the best solution was to let nature do its work from sunlight, fresh air and dryness which is the reason why people with discharges have to be isolated for certain amount of time. Normal cleanliness are also needed to ensure better hygiene. Rest, water and food are also needed to reduce the physiological stress and to replace body fluid and protein losses.

God Bless. :pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
05-28-2014, 07:43 AM
By my calculations 60 % of 100,000 x 12 = 720,000 sacrifices.

And if bloody discharges are a potential source of infection, then what about al the blood shed and discharged by all these sacrifices?

And if God's intention was to simply isolate the individual, then why require sacrifice at all?

It just seems so irrational, wasteful and unnecessary.

Rose
05-28-2014, 08:00 AM
Based on the normal distribution curve, tell me how many can afford pigeons for sin offerings? The chances are only about 50% to 60%, the other 20% to 25% will be able to afford more than pigeons and the other 20% to 25% will be too poor to be able to afford pigeons for sin offerings. The purpose of sin offering is based on affordabilty so that everyone contributed to the sin offerings to seek pardon and forgiveness of sin. The offerings will then be shared among all so that everyone poor and rich, could eat and enjoy the pardon from the sin offerings. This is also to celebrate the forgiveness of sins. So Craig is talking nonsense to the million of pigeons needed for the sin offeringss per year. The amount of pigeons for sin offerings were far less and there were other birds such as sparrows and turtle doves as alternatives to pigeons for the sin offerings. God sees all uncleanliness from body discharges as potential sources of diseases which may harm self and others and thus sinful.

Body discharges are considered as potentilally infectious; that's how diseases are spread. And during the time of Moses, there were no bactericidal solutions to kill the germs that the body discharges may harbor and thus the best solution was to let nature do its work from sunlight, fresh air and dryness which is the reason why people with discharges have to be isolated for certain amount of time. Normal cleanliness are also needed to ensure better hygiene. Rest, water and food are also needed to reduce the physiological stress and to replace body fluid and protein losses.

God Bless. :pray:

It doesn't matter how many people could afford to offer up the pigeons or doves, the point is that your Biblegod requires a SIN offering for natural bodily functions! How insane is that? Especially when the Bible says god created the human body with those functions.

In Genesis, your Biblegod says for humans to be fruitful and multiply, then the Bible proceeds to tell us that natural bodily functions, like menstruation, semen ejaculation, having sex and giving birth all require SIN offerings! :dizzy: It's one thing to have rules concerning hygiene, and quite another to require the sacrifice of SIN offerings for natural bodily functions that lead to having children! What kind of a crazy god would create the human body to have discharges as a natural part of reproduction and then call it sinful and requiring a sin offering? :confused:

If as you say, god sees all bodily discharges as sinful ... why isn't taking a crap also called sinful? :dontknow: Excrement is full of bacteria and the potential cause of many diseases!

CWH
05-28-2014, 09:03 AM
By my calculations 60 % of 100,000 x 12 = 720,000 sacrifices.

And if bloody discharges are a potential source of infection, then what about al the blood shed and discharged by all these sacrifices?

And if God's intention was to simply isolate the individual, then why require sacrifice at all?

It just seems so irrational, wasteful and unnecessary.
Your calculation is 720,000 birds, turtledove, sparrows, pigeons per year or 60,000 of these birds per month. Sin offerings will be consumed by all, nothing is wasted in celebration for the forgiveness of sin. Have you been for a banquet? It is the same as going for a banquet in which hundreds of birds were killed per day to celebrate a joyous occasion. Is it also irrational and wasteful and unnecessary?

The animals an birds were all roasted which is known as burnt offerings; there is little chance of food poisoning, Furthermore, the animals chosen for the offerings were clean and to be consumed by one day.

The sacrifice of animals in Sin offering was a reminder that if you sin, you will be like the animals and birds killed same as present day execution or hanging of murderers is a reminder not to murder. And also a reminder if you repent of your sin, you might be pardoned.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
05-28-2014, 09:22 AM
By my calculations 60 % of 100,000 x 12 = 720,000 sacrifices.

And if bloody discharges are a potential source of infection, then what about al the blood shed and discharged by all these sacrifices?

And if God's intention was to simply isolate the individual, then why require sacrifice at all?

It just seems so irrational, wasteful and unnecessary.

Hello Craig,

Excellent questions. :thumb:

The whole idea of killing animals for the forgiveness of sin is irrational on many levels. Not only is it a source for all manner of pathogens to breed, but killing animals does NOTHING to right any wrong that has been done. The really insane thing about the sin offering required for the natural discharge of bodily fluids, is the fact that the Bible says humans were created that way by god in order to reproduce. So, why would a sin offering be required for the natural way our bodies function?

Instead of giving laws for the sacrificing of animals, which is a potential source for all manner of diseases, the Bible should have given instructions for hygiene, and the reasons why bodily fluids can be a source of pathogens. All the killing of animals did was to make things worse! Much, much worse!

Take care,
Rose

CWH
05-28-2014, 09:28 AM
It doesn't matter how many people could afford to offer up the pigeons or doves, the point is that your Biblegod requires a SIN offering for natural bodily functions! How insane is that? Especially when the Bible says god created the human body with those functions.

In Genesis, your Biblegod says for humans to be fruitful and multiply, then the Bible proceeds to tell us that natural bodily functions, like menstruation, semen ejaculation, having sex and giving birth all require SIN offerings! :dizzy: It's one thing to have rules concerning hygiene, and quite another to require the sacrifice of SIN offerings for natural bodily functions that lead to having children! What kind of a crazy god would create the human body to have discharges as a natural part of reproduction and then call it sinful and requiring a sin offering? :confused:
It is not sin offering for bodily function but sin offerings for bodily waste. Anything dirty is consider as sin but not sin as per se so that they be properly disposed off such as through burning. Do you keep all these waste and consumed them?No, you disposed them away properly and hygienically, by burning etc. It is a reminder that if you don't keep hygienic, those waste are going to kill you and others like you killed the sacrificial animals. It is the same as posters to remind you to wash your hands or the germs on your hands are going to harm you and others. Remember do not do unto others what you want others not to do unto you. Remember the 5 moments of hand hygiene...before and after touching, after touchng the surroundings, before a clean procedure and after contact with bodily discharges.


If as you say, god sees all bodily discharges as sinful ... why isn't taking a crap also called sinful? :dontknow: Excrement is full of bacteria and the potential cause of many diseases!
Not sin as per se but sin in the sense that if you are not careful or hygienic, it may kill you just like you killed the sacrificial animals. it is also a reminder that doing dirty (and sinful) things such as murder, wickedness, may also lead you to death; But however, if you repent by doing clean hygienic(righteous) things you may be saved by being forgiven.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
05-28-2014, 09:51 AM
Hello Craig,

Excellent questions. :thumb:

The whole idea of killing animals for the forgiveness of sin is irrational on many levels. Not only is it a source for all manner of pathogens to breed, but killing animals does NOTHING to right any wrong that has been done. The really insane thing about the sin offering required for the natural discharge of bodily fluids, is the fact that the Bible says humans were created that way by god in order to reproduce. So, why would a sin offering be required for the natural way our bodies function?

Instead of giving laws for the sacrificing of animals, which is a potential source for all manner of diseases, the Bible should have given instructions for hygiene, and the reasons why bodily fluids can be a source of pathogens. All the killing of animals did was to make things worse! Much, much worse!

Take care,
Rose
The BIble have lots of instructions for hygiene; it shows the wisdom of God, check these out:


17 Bible Verses about Hygiene:
Leviticus 5:2-3
`Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. `Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty.


Leviticus 7:19-21
`Also the flesh that touches anything unclean shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. As for other flesh, anyone who is clean may eat such flesh. `But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the LORD, in his uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from his people. `When anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the LORD, that person shall be cut off from his people.'"

Leviticus 11:24-47
`By these, moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, and whoever picks up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. `Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean. read more.

Leviticus 13:1-3
Then the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling or a scab or a bright spot, and it becomes an infection of leprosy on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. "The priest shall look at the mark on the skin of the body, and if the hair in the infection has turned white and the infection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is an infection of leprosy; when the priest has looked at him, he shall pronounce him unclean.

Leviticus 14:1-8
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. Now he shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out to the outside of the camp. Thus the priest shall look, and if the infection of leprosy has been healed in the leper, read more.

Leviticus 15:1-13
The LORD also spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, `When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. `This, moreover, shall be his uncleanness in his discharge: it is his uncleanness whether his body allows its discharge to flow or whether his body obstructs its discharge. read more.

Leviticus 22:4-8
`No man of the descendants of Aaron, who is a leper or who has a discharge, may eat of the holy gifts until he is clean. And if one touches anything made unclean by a corpse or if a man has a seminal emission, or if a man touches any teeming things by which he is made unclean, or any man by whom he is made unclean, whatever his uncleanness; a person who touches any such shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat of the holy gifts unless he has bathed his body in water. read more.

Numbers 9:6-10
But there were some men who were unclean because of the dead person, so that they could not observe Passover on that day; so they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. Those men said to him, "Though we are unclean because of the dead person, why are we restrained from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the sons of Israel?" Moses therefore said to them, "Wait, and I will listen to what the LORD will command concerning you." read more.

Numbers 19:1-22
Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded, saying, `Speak to the sons of Israel that they bring you an unblemished red heifer in which is no defect and on which a yoke has never been placed. `You shall give it to Eleazar the priest, and it shall be brought outside the camp and be slaughtered in his presence. read more.

Numbers 31:19-20
"And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. "You shall purify for yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats' hair, and all articles of wood."

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
"If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Deuteronomy 23:10-11
"If there is among you any man who is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he must go outside the camp; he may not reenter the camp. "But it shall be when evening approaches, he shall bathe himself with water, and at sundown he may reenter the camp.

Deuteronomy 24:8
"Be careful against an infection of leprosy, that you diligently observe and do according to all that the Levitical priests teach you; as I have commanded them, so you shall be careful to do.

2 Chronicles 26:21
King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death; and he lived in a separate house, being a leper, for he was cut off from the house of the LORD. And Jotham his son was over the king's house judging the people of the land.

Matthew 23:25-26
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

Mark 7:1-8
The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; read more.

- See more at: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hygiene#sthash.APTxiRE7.dpuf

God Bless:pray:

Rose
05-28-2014, 09:56 AM
It is not sin offering for bodily function but sin offerings for bodily waste. Anything dirty is consider as sin but not sin as per se so that they be properly disposed off such as through burning. Do you keep all these waste and consumed them?No, you disposed them away properly and hygienically, by burning etc. It is a reminder that if you don't keep hygienic, those waste are going to kill you and others like you killed the sacrificial animals. It is the same as posters to remind you to wash your hands or the germs on your hands are going to harm you and others. Remember do not do unto others what you want others not to do unto you. Remember the 5 moments of hand hygiene...before and after touching, after touchng the surroundings, before a clean procedure and after contact with bodily discharges.

Now you are the one who needs to do your homework! Even the act of reproduction requiring semen, which is not a bodily waste is considered to be UNCLEAN! The very act of being fruitful and multiplying is considered unclean! How insane is that?

Lev.15:16-18 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water,and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, andbe unclean until the even.




Not sin as per se but sin in the sense that if you are not careful or hygienic, it may kill you just like you killed the sacrificial animals. it is also a reminder that doing dirty (and sinful) things such as murder, wickedness, may also lead you to death; But however, if you repent by doing clean hygienic(righteous) things you may be saved by being forgiven.

God Bless.:pray:

All you are doing is making one lame excuse after another. It's really quite pathetic for an intelligent man to be making up excuses for why primitive men thought that killing animals would cause their sins to be forgiven. It makes you look very foolish. :lol:

CWH
05-28-2014, 10:19 AM
Now you are the one who needs to do your homework! Even the act of reproduction requiring semen, which is not a bodily waste is considered to be UNCLEAN! The very act of being fruitful and multiplying is considered unclean! How insane is that?
Lev.15:16-18 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water,and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie [I]with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, andbe unclean until the even.
I have done my homework, thank you.
Wake Up! The production of semen is not unclean, it is the emission that is unclean as if it is not wash, germs will grow. Excess or "aged" semen is a waste and is naturally excreted either through nocturnal emission or through the urine. You need to wash yourself to keep clean and hygienic to prevent diseases.


All you are doing is making one lame excuse after another. It's really quite pathetic for an intelligent man to be making up excuses for why primitive men thought that killing animals would cause their sins to be forgiven. It makes you look very foolish. :lol:
Foolishness is in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, killing animals caused their sins to be forgiven and provide nutrition for their life. It is the same as killing germs caused the eradication of diseases and ensuring we live healthily.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
05-28-2014, 03:34 PM
I have done my homework, thank you.
Wake Up! The production of semen is not unclean, it is the emission that is unclean as if it is not wash, germs will grow. Excess or "aged" semen is a waste and is naturally excreted either through nocturnal emission or through the urine. You need to wash yourself to keep clean and hygienic to prevent diseases.

You come up with every excuse imaginable to try and justify the superstitious thinking of primitive men. The sad thing is I think you actually believe what those crazy, ludicrous rules in the Bible are saying.

Semen ejaculated through nocturnal emission is not "aged" waste semen, it is perfectly viable to fertilize an egg. Peoples excrement really is unclean, yet they weren't considered unclean until evening after they took a crap ... what's up with that? All the Bible needed to say, was to make sure and wash yourself after discharging bodily fluids or solids ... everything else is just superstitious garbage.



Foolishness is in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, killing animals caused their sins to be forgiven and provide nutrition for their life. It is the same as killing germs caused the eradication of diseases and ensuring we live healthily.

God Bless.:pray:

I cannot believe that you actually think killing animals forgives peoples sinful behavior ... and then you compare killing animals to killing germs?!?! I guess you really do think like the primitive men who wrote the Bible thought. :lol:

CWH
05-31-2014, 01:53 AM
You come up with every excuse imaginable to try and justify the superstitious thinking of primitive men. The sad thing is I think you actually believe what those crazy, ludicrous rules in the Bible are saying.

Semen ejaculated through nocturnal emission is not "aged" waste semen, it is perfectly viable to fertilize an egg. Peoples excrement really is unclean, yet they weren't considered unclean until evening after they took a crap ... what's up with that? All the Bible needed to say, was to make sure and wash yourself after discharging bodily fluids or solids ... everything else is just superstitious garbage.

I cannot believe that you actually think killing animals forgives peoples sinful behavior ... and then you compare killing animals to killing germs?!?! I guess you really do think like the primitive men who wrote the Bible thought. :lol:
I am not trying to justify any primitive people. The primitive people concept is your misguided thinking. I am thinking of a super intelligent force teaching those people about hygiene and other healthy lifestyle.

When a man has an emission, there will be loss or imbalance in their hormones and there is a loss of some fluid and other "things" and a certain amount of time is needed before the loss is replaced. This is the time where rest is needed till evening for the body physiology to return to normalcy. Meanwhile is the time to keep clean by washing or bathing away the bodily discharge.

What I mean is killing animals does not forgives people of sin but serves several purposes including forgiveness of sin:
1. As a reminder that if you sin, you will end up like the killed animals.
2. The killed animals serve as a witness of the covenant between God and man that the sins were forgiven in the sin offerings, for blessings etc.
3. The killed animals were consumed to celebrate the forgiveness of sin. This is a joyous occasion
4. The killed animals shows that God has the power to kill as well as to forgive, resurrect or reincarnate at will.
5. For food as a charity to be share among all which even the poor who cannot afford meat can also partake and enjoy and thus ensure proper nutrition.

We humans do the same, take an analogy, we killed animals and plants:
1. To celebrate a joyous occasion such as New Year's day, Easter, Christmas day etc.
2. To remind of certain important events such as Independence Day, Birthday, Marriage, Anniversary etc.
3. As a confirmation of a business deal or important agreements
4. As a gesture of friendship such as in social interactions, parties, dates etc.
5. For food to meet our daily nutritional requirements
6. For thrills and sports recreation.
7. For scientific experiments for drug effects, anatomy and physiological studies, environmental, diseases etc.
8. For their properties such as hides, fur, ivory, feathers, horns, organs etc.

Are these killings of animals and plants irrational, wasteful and unnecessary?

Incorrigible criminals and sinners such as serial rapists, murderers are like irritants, pests which should be got rid off or at least forever contained. Keep them or release them for what since they are incorrigible?.... to create more harms and evils for everybody including you and me and our generations? To love thy neighbor means you do not want any harm to be done to thy neighbors, so why release all these incorrigible criminals and sinners to harm thy neighbors? And how are we to account and justify and with justice to the innocent victims who are our neighbors for the harm inflicted by the release of these incorrigible criminals and sinners? It's like keeping Hitler...for what? For WW3 and get everyone killed?

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
05-31-2014, 08:43 AM
I am not trying to justify any primitive people. The primitive people concept is your misguided thinking. I am thinking of a super intelligent force teaching those people about hygiene and other healthy lifestyle.

When a man has an emission, there will be loss or imbalance in their hormones and there is a loss of some fluid and other "things" and a certain amount of time is needed before the loss is replaced. This is the time where rest is needed till evening for the body physiology to return to normalcy. Meanwhile is the time to keep clean by washing or bathing away the bodily discharge.

A healthy lifestyle of cleanliness and adequate rest is always best, but that is not what we are talking about. The whole point of this conversation is the primitive concept found in the Bible that you are trying to defend, of needing to offer a bloody animal sacrifice for normal bodily functions! You are continually trying to justify the barbaric idea that the sacrificing of animals somehow cleanses and forgives sin, and that normal bodily functions are sinful ... That is WRONG!


What I mean is killing animals does not forgives people of sin but serves several purposes including forgiveness of sin:
1. As a reminder that if you sin, you will end up like the killed animals.
2. The killed animals serve as a witness of the covenant between God and man that the sins were forgiven in the sin offerings, for blessings etc.
3. The killed animals were consumed to celebrate the forgiveness of sin. This is a joyous occasion
4. The killed animals shows that God has the power to kill as well as to forgive, resurrect or reincarnate at will.
5. For food as a charity to be share among all which even the poor who cannot afford meat can also partake and enjoy and thus ensure proper nutrition.

We humans do the same, take an analogy, we killed animals and plants:
1. To celebrate a joyous occasion such as New Year's day, Easter, Christmas day etc.
2. To remind of certain important events such as Independence Day, Birthday, Marriage, Anniversary etc.
3. As a confirmation of a business deal or important agreements
4. As a gesture of friendship such as in social interactions, parties, dates etc.
5. For food to meet our daily nutritional requirements
6. For thrills and sports recreation.
7. For scientific experiments for drug effects, anatomy and physiological studies, environmental, diseases etc.
8. For their properties such as hides, fur, ivory, feathers, horns, organs etc.

Are these killings of animals and plants irrational, wasteful and unnecessary?

There you go again, saying that one of the purposes of sacrificing animals was the forgiveness of sin!

My two main points:

1. NATURAL BODILY FUNCTIONS LIKE SEX, MENSTRUATION, SEMEN EMISSIONS AND GIVING BIRTH ARE NOT SINFUL!

2. BLOODY ANIMAL SACRIFICES DO NOT CLEANSE THE BODY, OR FORGIVE SIN!



Incorrigible criminals and sinners such as serial rapists, murderers are like irritants, pests which should be got rid off or at least forever contained. Keep them or release them for what since they are incorrigible?.... to create more harms and evils for everybody including you and me and our generations? To love thy neighbor means you do not want any harm to be done to thy neighbors, so why release all these incorrigible criminals and sinners to harm thy neighbors? And how are we to account and justify and with justice to the innocent victims who are our neighbors for the harm inflicted by the release of these incorrigible criminals and sinners? It's like keeping Hitler...for what? For WW3 and get everyone killed?

God Bless.:pray:

I don't recall anyone saying that criminals should be released from prison??? Where did you come up with that crazy idea??? Oh, I know! That's what Christianity teaches ... forgive all the criminals if they confess Jesus, and condemn all those who don't believe!

According to your Christian belief system, if Hitler had asked Jesus for forgiveness, he would have been instantly forgiven of all his heinous crimes. :mad:

CWH
06-01-2014, 03:04 AM
A healthy lifestyle of cleanliness and adequate rest is always best, but that is not what we are talking about. The whole point of this conversation is the primitive concept found in the Bible that you are trying to defend, of needing to offer a bloody animal sacrifice for normal bodily functions! You are continually trying to justify the barbaric idea that the sacrificing of animals somehow cleanses and forgives sin, and that normal bodily functions are sinful ... That is WRONG!
I am trying to tell you that the sacrifice of animals in sin offerings serve as a witness to the covenant before God and man. The sacrificial animal could testify in the heavenly court that the covenant is legally binding between God and Man. The sacrificial animal will then be eaten to celebrate the forgiveness of sin. It also serves as a reminder that if the covenant is broken by man, then they will end up like the killed animals. It goes the same with humans, supposed you are forgiven or vindicated from a crime and you wanted to share this happiness for your family, relatives and friends, what will you do? You give them a treat and that includes eating of meat, vegetables etc. meaning some animals and plants like chicken, fish and vegetables etc, will have to be consumed to share this happy occasion. Is this considered as barbaric also?

Supposed I sacrificed my life for you Rose from being murdered, I have to account to God what I have done and why I died. And supposed when you eventually died and go to heaven, you also have to account for what you have done in your life to God. I would then be able to bear witness as to what are the good things you have done and you bear witness that I sacrificed my life for you based on love thy neighbor as thyself. This is analogous to a big business deal in which there will be witnesses to the signing of the business agreement between the directors of both companies with the signature of the witnesses and lawyers to ensure that the agreement is legally binding and done with good faith. Whoever broke the agreement will have to pay compensation to the other party. This will usually be followed by a sumptous lunch or dinner to celebrate the occasion of the sucessful business deal. That also means that animals and plants will have to be consumed to celebrate the successful business deal. Is that also barbaric?

Likewise the animals serves as a witness to the "bussiness deal" between God and man done in good faith that God forgave the sin of man whereas man will obey God's commandments to lead a righteous sinless life. The sacrifical animals will then be consumed to celebrate the joyous occasion. Is that also barbaric?....or do you supposed we should sacrifice a human as a witness to the covenant instead of an animal?..... Is the sacrifice of animals more barbaric compared to the religious tradition of Baal and Molech which sacrificed young children? If so, shouldn't the religions of Baal and Molech be destroyed?


There you go again, saying that one of the purposes of sacrificing animals was the forgiveness of sin!

My two main points:

1. NATURAL BODILY FUNCTIONS LIKE SEX, MENSTRUATION, SEMEN EMISSIONS AND GIVING BIRTH ARE NOT SINFUL!

2. BLOODY ANIMAL SACRIFICES DO NOT CLEANSE THE BODY, OR FORGIVE SIN!
1. There you go again, I have said that sex, menstruation, semen emission, birth are not sinful but the bodily discharges are dirty and can harbor gemrs and therefore must be cleansed to ensure a good standard of personal hygiene to prevent infections and diseases. Bible God provided some healthy instructions including rest to ensure that, based on the healthy methods available to those ancient people at that time. It is considered sinful based on the fact that poor hygiene practices will spread infections and disease to others who are your neighbors. If you really love your neighbors as yourself, you will not want to harm them by spreading infections and diseases to them due to your unheathy dirty practices whilst going against God's instructions which He instructed on healthy practices and healthy lifestyle. Disobedience to God and His instructions and harming the innocents are considered sinful.

2. Correct, but blood sacrifices provide witness to the covenant between God and man for the forgiveness of sin and other blessings as I have already stated in the above paragragh. It also serves as a reminder that in the event that the covenant is broken by man, they will end up like the killed bloody animals; if broken by God (which is almost impossible), then God will have to pay compensations. Have I made myself clear?


I don't recall anyone saying that criminals should be released from prison??? Where did you come up with that crazy idea??? Oh, I know! That's what Christianity teaches ... forgive all the criminals if they confess Jesus, and condemn all those who don't believe!
Then what do you expect? It goes the same with humans too; if you confess and regret to your crimes, you will get a lighter sentence and if you don't and found guilty, the full force of the punishment of the law will be on you. If you don't obey or ignore the country's law, you will be punished if you break the laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Is that anything wrong or unfair?


According to your Christian belief system, if Hitler had asked Jesus for forgiveness, he would have been instantly forgiven of all his heinous crimes. :mad:
As I said before, forgiveness of sin comes with punishment; same as secular law if a criminal who confess to his crime and regret sincerely will not go unpunished but will be given a lighter sentence. This is for justice and for deterrence.
Knowing Hitler, I doubt Hilter will repent (and repentance goes with punishment) if not he would have ended WW2 much earlier and saving millions of lives. He will probably answer, "There is no God the Father except the Fuhrer. God is Bullshit! Heil Hitler!".:D

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-01-2014, 09:03 AM
I am trying to tell you that the sacrifice of animals in sin offerings serve as a witness to the covenant before God and man. The sacrificial animal could testify in the heavenly court that the covenant is legally binding between God and Man. The sacrificial animal will then be eaten to celebrate the forgiveness of sin. It also serves as a reminder that if the covenant is broken by man, then they will end up like the killed animals. It goes the same with humans, supposed you are forgiven or vindicated from a crime and you wanted to share this happiness for your family, relatives and friends, what will you do? You give them a treat and that includes eating of meat, vegetables etc. meaning some animals and plants like chicken, fish and vegetables etc, will have to be consumed to share this happy occasion. Is this considered as barbaric also?

Supposed I sacrificed my life for you Rose from being murdered, I have to account to God what I have done and why I died. And supposed when you eventually died and go to heaven, you also have to account for what you have done in your life to God. I would then be able to bear witness as to what are the good things you have done and you bear witness that I sacrificed my life for you based on love thy neighbor as thyself. This is analogous to a big business deal in which there will be witnesses to the signing of the business agreement between the directors of both companies with the signature of the witnesses and lawyers to ensure that the agreement is legally binding and done with good faith. Whoever broke the agreement will have to pay compensation to the other party. This will usually be followed by a sumptous lunch or dinner to celebrate the occasion of the sucessful business deal. That also means that animals and plants will have to be consumed to celebrate the successful business deal. Is that also barbaric?

Likewise the animals serves as a witness to the "bussiness deal" between God and man done in good faith that God forgave the sin of man whereas man will obey God's commandments to lead a righteous sinless life. The sacrifical animals will then be consumed to celebrate the joyous occasion. Is that also barbaric?....or do you supposed we should sacrifice a human as a witness to the covenant instead of an animal?..... Is the sacrifice of animals more barbaric compared to the religious tradition of Baal and Molech which sacrificed young children? If so, shouldn't the religions of Baal and Molech be destroyed?


1. There you go again, I have said that sex, menstruation, semen emission, birth are not sinful but the bodily discharges are dirty and can harbor gemrs and therefore must be cleansed to ensure a good standard of personal hygiene to prevent infections and diseases. Bible God provided some healthy instructions including rest to ensure that, based on the healthy methods available to those ancient people at that time. It is considered sinful based on the fact that poor hygiene practices will spread infections and disease to others who are your neighbors. If you really love your neighbors as yourself, you will not want to harm them by spreading infections and diseases to them due to your unheathy dirty practices whilst going against God's instructions which He instructed on healthy practices and healthy lifestyle. Disobedience to God and His instructions and harming the innocents are considered sinful.

2. Correct, but blood sacrifices provide witness to the covenant between God and man for the forgiveness of sin and other blessings as I have already stated in the above paragragh. It also serves as a reminder that in the event that the covenant is broken by man, they will end up like the killed bloody animals; if broken by God (which is almost impossible), then God will have to pay compensations. Have I made myself clear?


Then what do you expect? It goes the same with humans too; if you confess and regret to your crimes, you will get a lighter sentence and if you don't and found guilty, the full force of the punishment of the law will be on you. If you don't obey or ignore the country's law, you will be punished if you break the laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Is that anything wrong or unfair?


As I said before, forgiveness of sin comes with punishment; same as secular law if a criminal who confess to his crime and regret sincerely will not go unpunished but will be given a lighter sentence. This is for justice and for deterrence.
Knowing Hitler, I doubt Hilter will repent (and repentance goes with punishment) if not he would have ended WW2 much earlier and saving millions of lives. He will probably answer, "There is no God the Father except the Fuhrer. God is Bullshit! Heil Hitler!".:D

God Bless.:pray:

Your words continue to pile up higher and higher in your attempt to justify the BARBARIC ACT of sacrificing animals to cleanse and forgive natural bodily functions, when ALL that is required is to practice good hygiene and keep oneself clean.

Sacrificing animals for the purpose of forgiving sin and cleansing is a BARBARIC CONCEPT that most all ancient cultures practice in some form, because they were superstitious and believed in mythical gods. Modern people understand that sacrificing animals does NOTHING as far as cleansing them or forgiving sins, so there is no sense in trying to justify the primitive ideas of ancient men who were trying to appease their mythical gods.

The Bible is an ancient book filled with primitive ideas about all sorts of things people didn't understand at the time, so they MADE UP reasons based on their superstitious thinking. Today we understand things based on the scientific method of understanding and evidence, not on SUPERSTITIONS and MYTHS! You need to let go of that type of primitive thinking and embrace the scientific approach that uses reason and logic based on evidence. Step into the 21st century!

Richard Amiel McGough
06-01-2014, 09:10 AM
Your words continue to pile up higher and higher in your attempt to justify the BARBARIC ACT of sacrificing animals to cleanse and forgive natural bodily functions, when ALL that is required is to practice good hygiene and keep oneself clean.

Sacrificing animals for the purpose of forgiving sin and cleansing is a BARBARIC CONCEPT that most all ancient cultures practice in some form, because they were superstitious and believed in mythical gods. Modern people understand that sacrificing animals does NOTHING as far as cleansing them or forgiving sins, so there is no sense in trying to justify the primitive ideas of ancient men who were trying to appease their mythical gods.

The Bible is an ancient book filled with primitive ideas about all sorts of things people didn't understand at the time, so they MADE UP reasons based on their superstitious thinking. Today we understand things based on the scientific method of understanding and evidence, not on SUPERSTITIONS and MYTHS! You need to let go of that type of primitive thinking and embrace the scientific approach that uses reason and logic based on evidence. Step into the 21st century!
Yep. It's VOODOO! The religion of primitive people ...

1174

CWH
06-03-2014, 04:53 AM
Your words continue to pile up higher and higher in your attempt to justify the BARBARIC ACT of sacrificing animals to cleanse and forgive natural bodily functions, when ALL that is required is to practice good hygiene and keep oneself clean.
Hygiene is good for cleaning the body, how about cleaning the soul? What good is a clean body but a stinking dirty soul? How can we get rid of our stinking dirty soul? Obviously, forgiveness of sin! It also provide some form of psychological hygiene knowing that your sins are forgiven and blessings given. What good is healthy body but poor mental health? That's why God provides both optimal physical spiritual and mental health for your body and soul with worship, prayers, sin offerings etc. He taught us how best to live our life abundantly and eternally. What is the point of living a temporal life on earth when you know that it is possible to live abundant life eternally if you believe in God. Remember what Jesus said, "Do Not store your treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy but store your treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy".


Sacrificing animals for the purpose of forgiving sin and cleansing is a BARBARIC CONCEPT that most all ancient cultures practice in some form, because they were superstitious and believed in mythical gods. Modern people understand that sacrificing animals does NOTHING as far as cleansing them or forgiving sins, so there is no sense in trying to justify the primitive ideas of ancient men who were trying to appease their mythical gods.
You still don't understand that we sacrifice millions of animals everyday to appease gods and to appease our stomachs. It is important for both mental, spiritual and physical health. Isn't it equally barbaric if we kill animals to celebrate occasions, birthdays, parties, for thrills, for banquets....that's what modern people do. The so call ancient barbaric idea is still prevalent in modern people's minds.


The Bible is an ancient book filled with primitive ideas about all sorts of things people didn't understand at the time, so they MADE UP reasons based on their superstitious thinking. Today we understand things based on the scientific method of understanding and evidence, not on SUPERSTITIONS and MYTHS! You need to let go of that type of primitive thinking and embrace the scientific approach that uses reason and logic based on evidence. Step into the 21st century!
Don't you know that we unconsciously worship God everyday?... for the food we eat, the climate we have, the children, the sun, the stars, the fauna and flora, natural sceneries etc. etc. Yet, there are ungrateful people!
There are many ultra-scientific ideas in the Bible which we have not even realized if only You open your eyes wider still!... ideas way beyond our imaginations which only ignorant people like you regard as non-sense and fantasies....raising of the dead, curing illnesses instantly, walking on water etc. Step beyond the 21st century! Now Open Your Eyes WIDER! :eek: :eek:

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-03-2014, 07:57 AM
Hygiene is good for cleaning the body, how about cleaning the soul? What good is a clean body but a stinking dirty soul? How can we get rid of our stinking dirty soul? Obviously, forgiveness of sin! It also provide some form of psychological hygiene knowing that your sins are forgiven and blessings given. What good is healthy body but poor mental health? That's why God provides both optimal physical spiritual and mental health for your body and soul with worship, prayers, sin offerings etc. He taught us how best to live our life abundantly and eternally. What is the point of living a temporal life on earth when you know that it is possible to live abundant life eternally if you believe in God. Remember what Jesus said, "Do Not store your treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy but store your treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy".


You still don't understand that we sacrifice millions of animals everyday to appease gods and to appease our stomachs. It is important for both mental, spiritual and physical health. Isn't it equally barbaric if we kill animals to celebrate occasions, birthdays, parties, for thrills, for banquets....that's what modern people do. The so call ancient barbaric idea is still prevalent in modern people's minds.

OMG! You still don get it?!? All animals (humans included) need to eat food to survive, some animals eat meat, some eat plants ... that has nothing to do with sacrificing animals to cleanse peoples sins or grant forgiveness!

The Bible declares that natural human bodily functions are sinful, and in need of cleansing and forgiveness by the shedding of animal blood! The shedding of animal blood does not cleanse or forgive sin. It is a barbaric and primitive idea which the Bible promotes as being commanded by its god.

Anyone who sacrifices an animal for the purpose of appeasing a god, is doing a barbaric and primitive act! Killing animals for food for celebrations is very different than killing them to appease a mythological god, and believing that the killing of an animal actually cleanses you of sin! Why can't you understand that?? :confused:


Don't you know that we unconsciously worship God everyday?... for the food we eat, the climate we have, the children, the sun, the stars, the fauna and flora, natural sceneries etc. etc. Yet, there are ungrateful people!
There are many ultra-scientific ideas in the Bible which we have not even realized if only You open your eyes wider still!... ideas way beyond our imaginations which only ignorant people like you regard as non-sense and fantasies....raising of the dead, curing illnesses instantly, walking on water etc. Step beyond the 21st century! Now Open Your Eyes WIDER! :eek: :eek:

God Bless.:pray:

So far there has not been one documented case of the Biblegod raising someone from the dead, instantly curing an illness, or someone walking on water. Someday, science may be able to do those things, but so far the Biblegod hasn't because he is mythological.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-04-2014, 03:51 PM
70 generations from Enoch to Christ lasting 1111111 days.

Exactly halfway we find the LAW of the MOSAIC covenant which centred on the sacrifice of animals to cover our sins.

Complete forgiveness only came at the end of the 70 generations - by the Son of God being sacrificed for us

During the period of guilt, the blood of the innocent was continuously shed to provide temporary forgiveness. ONly the blood of God could provide everlasting forgiveness.Everyday we had to bathe in blood - this reminded us of our guilt.

In the Axial age, there was a distinct shift away from sacrifice towards personal and direct communion. This began half way between Moses and Christ - 770 years after Moses the Northern Kingdom was judged. In 701 B.C. the Southern Kingdom was spared and lasted a further 770 years. The swing was from Judgement to Mercy

From Noah until Moses there were 430 x 2 years. 70 sabbath years x 2

From Moses until the end of the Temple in 586 B.C there were also 70 sabbath years x 2

Through out the 70 generations, the Sabbath functioned as a time of forginveness.

http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

Rose
06-04-2014, 08:10 PM
70 generations from Enoch to Christ lasting 1111111 days.

Hello Craig,

I don't understand how you can assert an exact number of days when there are so many uncertain factors? Enoch may or may not have been a real person, but if he was a real person there is no reliable date for his birth. The same with Jesus, his birth date ranges from 6BC to 1 or 2AD. Even asserting 70 generations is taking liberties with a lot of unknowns.


Exactly halfway we find the LAW of the MOSAIC covenant which centred on the sacrifice of animals to cover our sins.

Complete forgiveness only came at the end of the 70 generations - by the Son of God being sacrificed for us

During the period of guilt, the blood of the innocent was continuously shed to provide temporary forgiveness. ONly the blood of God could provide everlasting forgiveness.Everyday we had to bathe in blood - this reminded us of our guilt.

The idea of sacrificing animals and humans for the covering of sins and forgiveness, is a very primitive concept that was prevalent in many ancient cultures. To the non-superstitious modern mind, there is absolutely no reason why blood needs to be shed in order for wrongs to be forgiven ... that type of primitive thinking needs to be thrown into the dustbin of history. The whole concept of needing to sacrifice a life in order to be cleansed of sin was born in the superstitious thought patterns of primitive men who had no idea of how the world around them worked ... everything bad that happened was the decree of some capricious god who needed the sweet savor of burning flesh to appease him.


In the Axial age, there was a distinct shift away from sacrifice towards personal and direct communion. This began half way between Moses and Christ - 770 years after Moses the Northern Kingdom was judged. In 701 B.C. the Southern Kingdom was spared and lasted a further 770 years. The swing was from Judgement to Mercy

From Noah until Moses there were 430 x 2 years. 70 sabbath years x 2

From Moses until the end of the Temple in 586 B.C there were also 70 sabbath years x 2

Through out the 70 generations, the Sabbath functioned as a time of forginveness.

http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

Again, all the dates you are asserting are just guess work. If there really was a Noah or a Moses, there is no agreement on when they might have lived, so saying that there was 860 years between them has no bases whatsoever in fact.

You speak of the Axial age having a swing from Judgment to Mercy, yet when one reads the book of Revelation it is filled from front to back with judgment and eternal torment in hell, things which the Old Testament never spoke of!

Take care,
Rose

CWH
06-04-2014, 11:57 PM
OMG! You still don get it?!? All animals (humans included) need to eat food to survive, some animals eat meat, some eat plants ... that has nothing to do with sacrificing animals to cleanse peoples sins or grant forgiveness!
You still don't get it? Animals were sacrifice for human consumption not only to feed the stomachs but also to keep them happy during festive, party and event celebrations. Isn't it barbaric to sacrifice animals to keep people happy. If you think it is not, then what is the difference between these celebrations and sacrificing animals to forgive sin which is also for food and celebrations?


The Bible declares that natural human bodily functions are sinful, and in need of cleansing and forgiveness by the shedding of animal blood! The shedding of animal blood does not cleanse or forgive sin. It is a barbaric and primitive idea which the Bible promotes as being commanded by its god.
Anyone who sacrifices an animal for the purpose of appeasing a god, is doing a barbaric and primitive act! Killing animals for food for celebrations is very different than killing them to appease a mythological god, and believing that the killing of an animal actually cleanses you of sin! Why can't you understand that?? :confused:
The Bible never declare that natural bodily functions are sinful but that the bodily discharges are dirty and it is the causes of the spread of most diseases. It is sinful in the sense that if you don't keep clean, it will spread diseases to innocent self and others. The shedding of animal blood does not cleanse or forgive sin but the blood shedding was necessary as a reminder that blood will be shed if you sin.
Is it ethical to sacrifice an animal to feed the poor who can't afford meat to meet their nutritional needs? That is also one reason why the sacrificial animal was shared among all who worship God. If you think it is ok to sacrifice animals in celebrations, then what is the difference between these celebrations and sacrificing animals to forgive sin which is also for food and celebrations? God has said in the Bible that it is not the sacrification of animals that He wants but that the people turned from their evil ways and do righteous things by obeying God.

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Psalms 51:16
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

Funny, blood which are donated and its blood products are used to save lives such as in blood, platelets and plasma transfusions, production of therapeutic hormones, immuno drugs etc. the white blood cells in our blood is capable of fighting against a;most all diseases and yet does not cause bacteria resistance as with the use of antibiotics.


So far there has not been one documented case of the Biblegod raising someone from the dead, instantly curing an illness, or someone walking on water. Someday, science may be able to do those things, but so far the Biblegod hasn't because he is mythological.
Don't you know we are "gods" as stated by Isaiah? And many of the miracles that were performed by Jesus disciples or described in the Bible such as the raising of the dead, curing of diseases instantly, walking on the water have been partially achieved by modern humans such as cardiac defibrillation, artificial heart, pacemakers, antibiotics, vaccines, radiotherapies etc. There are researches to perfect those treatments and I have no doubt we will be able to achieve many of those miracles as described in the Bible in the near future. Now open your eyes BIG BIG and live beyond the 21st century! The Bible is full of ultra-scientific ideas beyond our current technologies.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-05-2014, 07:56 AM
You still don't get it? Animals were sacrifice for human consumption not only to feed the stomachs but also to keep them happy during festive, party and event celebrations. Isn't it barbaric to sacrifice animals to keep people happy. If you think it is not, then what is the difference between these celebrations and sacrificing animals to forgive sin which is also for food and celebrations?

Hello Cheow

NO, No, no! Human consumption was not the reason that animals were sacrificed under the Mosaic Law. Yes, the priests did eat some of the sacrificed meat, but that is not the reason the animals were sacrificed in the first place. It clearly states in the Mosaic Law that the killing of animals and the shedding of blood is required by the Biblegod to cleanse and forgive iniquity.



The Bible never declare that natural bodily functions are sinful but that the bodily discharges are dirty and it is the causes of the spread of most diseases. It is sinful in the sense that if you don't keep clean, it will spread diseases to innocent self and others. The shedding of animal blood does not cleanse or forgive sin but the blood shedding was necessary as a reminder that blood will be shed if you sin.

The Bible most certainly does declare that natural bodily functions are sinful! If it was merely because bodily discharges are dirty as you say, then why aren't sacrifices requires every time someone takes a crap or a pee? Feces really is dirty the minute it comes out of the body, whereas semen and menstrual fluids are not.


Is it ethical to sacrifice an animal to feed the poor who can't afford meat to meet their nutritional needs? That is also one reason why the sacrificial animal was shared among all who worship God. If you think it is ok to sacrifice animals in celebrations, then what is the difference between these celebrations and sacrificing animals to forgive sin which is also for food and celebrations? God has said in the Bible that it is not the sacrification of animals that He wants but that the people turned from their evil ways and do righteous things by obeying God.

There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food, but we are not talking about the ethics of killing animals for food. What we are talking about is the notion that is promoted in the Bible, that somehow the killing of an animal as is required under the Mosaic Law, cleanses people and forgives their sins. Sacrificing animals and humans to appease a capricious god is a very barbaric and primitive idea that many cultures practiced in ancient times. It is an idea born out of ignorance, and needs to be soundly rejected.




Don't you know we are "gods" as stated by Isaiah? And many of the miracles that were performed by Jesus disciples or described in the Bible such as the raising of the dead, curing of diseases instantly, walking on the water have been partially achieved by modern humans such as cardiac defibrillation, artificial heart, pacemakers, antibiotics, vaccines, radiotherapies etc. There are researches to perfect those treatments and I have no doubt we will be able to achieve many of those miracles as described in the Bible in the near future. Now open your eyes BIG BIG and live beyond the 21st century! The Bible is full of ultra-scientific ideas beyond our current technologies.

God Bless.:pray:

What the Bible is full of is myths and fairy tales. It is full of the imagining of primitive men who were ignorant of science and thus made up gods to fill the gaps in their knowledge. Fortunately many people throughout history have took off their religious blinders and discovered great things that has helped humankind greatly. No thanks to the Biblegod, people discovered antibiotics and all the other medical discoveries that helped humans to live healthier lives.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
06-05-2014, 09:08 PM
An Overview Of The Bible And Its God

All Gods are created in man's image. Not the other way around.

They were vicious and bloodthirsty. They were forever slaughtering animals and offering them as sacrifices to their God. Cruelty and pain were simply parts of their everyday lives, in regard to how they treated animals and fellow humans.

As a creation and (externalization in their their own minds), their projected-God was likewise vicious and bloodthirsty. They (the reformers of Yahweh-Cult circa 8-7th centuries B.C.) chose their Demiurgic-Creator obviously from the pantheon of gods of their polytheistic days and made him the only God. They turned a lowly-elemental high-desert storm/cloud-god into the One and Only God of the universe. They made a god the God with a capital (G). Big-Bad Daddy.

They subsequently used the Bible, [under the control of their priesthood of the Yahweh cult], to crush matriarchy and goddess-worship then elevate patriarchy and monotheism as controlling forces of their nascent society and belligerent people. They needed and created Yahweh for a sense of unity, focus, and nationhood.

The Bible Anthology: Some are dull and boring, others are somewhat intriguing...And the Bible is still one of your best sources for soap opera drama, rape and sex and violence, and genocide!

But it is not the place to go for science and history... The Iron-Age folks of the Bible were backward and primitive people (just like every one else living at that time.), so of course their books are going to backward and primitive.

Leviticus 11

Interminable gibberish and nonsense about what animals to eat and what ones not to eat... In verses which contain Yahweh's dietary instructions, how often do we read a fucking thing about fruits and veggies? Rarely. We hardly see a word about healthy foods like grains and legumes.

No wonder the holy-hordes were always wondering around to and fro in the desert looking for milk and honey- they were trying to exercise off all the animal fat and red meat their all-wise God had made them ingest.

I mean, every goddam fucking time someone fucked-up, olde El-Stormy gets "Pissy"and thunders from on high on rampage Heaven for the Priests to go kill a sheep or goat then feed it to all the other chosen. The continual cycle of fucking up-carnage of helpless animals-ingestion of the animal victims to atone for all the fuck-ups, must have made them a bunch of fat motherfuckers. Lucky for them their desert region was very large and hot.

Where's the Veggies? LOL.

Why did an innocent animal have to be killed every fucking-time something significant happened in the Camp? Instead of being relieved that his leprosy was finally gone, for example, a cured leper had to immediately go to his cultist-priest, who then went through a complicated process of sacrificing birds and lambs to commemorate the departed disease.

They could never just relax, lie around and shoot the breeze, or have a picnic and a good 'ol time, or tell stories around the campfire at night. Yahweh was always making them "celebrate" by working and sacrificing. And animals were always the victims of this fucked-up "society."

"Joshua And His Merry Band Of Homicidal-Sociopaths"
A Very Short Commentary On the Book of Joshua,

Chapter 7
Verse 10: "Get up off your ass, Joshua. Be a man. Don't be such a sniveling coward. You haven't killed enough humans yet. No time to rest. Jump up and get busy."

Verse 11: This must be where the slang term "stuff," meaning material possessions, originated. "Hey, have you seen my stuff?" Or "I have too much stuff now. I need to put some of it in storage." Or "I need to buy a bigger house to have room for all my stuff." (See George Carlin.)

Verses 24-26: Theologians and any other people who say Yahweh is a just god haven't read these verses very closely, that's for sure! The Storm-tropper God of the Bible is anything but Just! Nothing could be more unfair than killing a man's children and animals because of his transgression. Furthermore, to kill a man because he stole a few pieces of war booty is extremely cruel.

But think about it for a minute. The war booty- "the treasury of the Lord," was for the treasurers! It was for the use of the priests (the power structure), and to be under their control, so when a mere civilian, a small fry, stole some of it, the punishment was severe. Stone the bastard, then whether he's already dead or still barely breathing, burn him! The power of the priests must be maintained no matter what.

No matter what you do, don't fuck with the Yahweh priesthood/cult...


It contains some truth but not much. Most of its characters and events are symbolic, folklore, propagandic, allegorical and mythological.

The Bible is largely a rewrite and recasts of previous myths with new and interesting-twists which the Hebrews naturally borrowed from preceding Middle Bronze Age sources circa 2100-1500 B.C. (Though nothing wrong with that...not a big deal though, just a normal progression of human culture and myth. One Mythology 101 class is all it takes to realize humans have a truly mind-boggling vivid-imagination and "a need to gather followers to Justify it." This tradition applies across time. Other myths went one better; even their gods were just as royaly screwed-up in the head too).History in the Old Testament proves Hebrews were originally polytheistic, shifting to henotheistic, shifting to monaltry and then finally to monotheism in the 6th century B.C. Actually El was the proper name for a specific god prior to it becoming used as a generic word for "god" during the assimilation process.

This is another example of how the Yahwist cult tried to make these other neighbouring gods "disappear" by assimilating them into their god.) So mostly the Bible is a synthesis of earlier texts...and a masterpiece of plagiarism, if you will...and a book of mythology which should not be taken too seriously.

From what i've personally observed, the Christian Conversion Doctrine or Brainwashing (a lot like Scientology is based upon Extreme-Deception and Contradictions.) is like a "form" Rape. The very act of rape itself is committing psychological "violence against a persons mind of Volitional Self-Will and Integrity." Their 'WAY' is one Dominance and Submission via TERROR!

And having one's "Freedom-of-Thought Bound" (a perfect definition of fundamentalist religion!) is like Suffocation and "Binding." Unfortunately, their type of INSANITY is not recognized, acknowledged, or understood by our "Mental Health System." Substitute 'Reality' for 'Unreality' for a Demiurgic Storm-God' (Yaldabaoth-like a/k/a Biblegod) and 'illusion' for 'Satan' and there you have yourself an Extreme and Rabid Christian Fundamentalist/Evangelical Manichean-Dualist! LOL.

This Psychotic-Model will indeed "Yield-Results" if pursued to its end, but in the mean time "the world and everything in HER is seen as 'demonic,' 'satanic' and 'beastly' in need of being Denied and Destroyed!"

PSYCHOTIC LUSTY TYRANT-GOD + MINDLESS DEATH-TRIP CULT OF UNREALITY/RELIGION of BIGOTRY AND HATE = FEAR of DEATH ===> Guarantees [MIND-FUCK of RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION and BONDAGE], DOMINANCE and POWER ===> FEAR arises from acts of PSYCHOLOGICAL-RAPE and ABUSE and TERRORISM.

All Religious Fundamentalists have this same "basic-type of Mindset" in that their source of power and growth is a PSYCHOLOGICAL-OPERATION of CRUSADE CAMPAIGN OF FEAR and PSYCHOLOGICAL-TERRORISM. They all preach a gospel and god of brotherly-love, the sweet baby jesus, of charity compassion and merciful, but in the end it is their employment of TERRORISM and HATE they think that makes them "Great!"

The "Theory" of Soul as the principle of Personal-Consciousness and Immortality is a late invention. It's a really fiction...the theory of Mind and Immortality of the Soul is just a ["Speculative Idea"], although theoretically [neither demonstrable nor comprehensible"] as was rightly said by Kant.

Thus, while Plato did believed in the immortality of the soul, Aristotle did not! And this is important to note here. Because in "adapting Aristotle" to Christianity, dogmatic Scholastic philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas had to take Aristotle's metaphysics for the existence of the gods, "as unique and separable form" and ["use it for human souls!"].

Oh, and Speaking of Animals...since [this was not done for animal souls], we find Descartes dispensing with the idea that animals have souls at all! Descartes, who allowed [that duality that both matter and mind were separate substances.] The difficulties this dualism created for him are well known!

"HERE'S A LIST OF O.T. CHRSTIAN PROPGANDA"

~A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm.

~It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways- over 400 years (Genesis 15:13-16)! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were "disobedient," a word that implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God's power (Joshua 2:10-11, 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end.

~We must remember that while it is true the Canaanite women did not fight, this in no way means they were innocent, as their seductive behavior in Numbers 25 indicates (Numbers 25:1-3). However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5, 58:3). This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are.

~God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God, and God alone, can give life and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. While it is wrong for us to take a life, except in instances of capital punishment, war, and self-defense, this does not mean that it is wrong for God to do so. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as "playing God." God is under no obligation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.

~It would have been cruel for God to take the lives of all the Canaanites except the infants and children. Without the protection and support of their parents, the infants and small children were likely to face death anyway due to starvation. The chances of survival for an orphan in the ancient Near East were not good.

~God may have provided for the salvation for those infants who would not have otherwise attained salvation if they had lived into adulthood. We must remember that the Canaanites were a barbarous and evil culture. If those infants and children had lived into adulthood, it is very likely they would have turned into something similar to their parents and been condemned to hell after they died. If all infants and young children who die before an age of moral accountability go straight to heaven (as we believe), then those children are in a far better place than if God had allowed them to live and grow to maturity in a depraved culture.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
06-05-2014, 09:42 PM
The "Ultra Sciency" ideas in the Bible! :rolleyes:

Times the Bible has been proven right in Science,

:pop2:

~Sometimes it rains a lot. Sometimes this makes rainbows appear.
~There are fish in the sea.
~Whales are Big. Their mouths are often big enough for a human to fit into.
~Jerusalem was taken in one day....That's gotta be worth something? :thumb:

Now open your eyes BIG BIG and live beyond the 21st century! The Bible is full of ultra-scientific ideas beyond our current technologies! LMAO. :lol:

:pray: :p (PREY!)

Craig.Paardekooper
06-06-2014, 03:52 AM
If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

How can this be explained?

It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

moral = people following a law
immoral = people who break a law
amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws. One day he might destroy the whole universe and recreate another.

If God is beyond moral law then if God commands you to do something, then you have absolute authority to do it no matter how objectionable it might seem.

So most arguments about the badness or goodness of God are attempts to reduce God to a human level, so as to make Him accountable.

CWH
06-06-2014, 03:54 AM
Hello Cheow
NO, No, no! Human consumption was not the reason that animals were sacrificed under the Mosaic Law. Yes, the priests did eat some of the sacrificed meat, but that is not the reason the animals were sacrificed in the first place. It clearly states in the Mosaic Law that the killing of animals and the shedding of blood is required by the Biblegod to cleanse and forgive iniquity.Hi Rose,
Yes, it is for human consumption and there are numerous verses in the BIble that says so ...for the priests, the family members and others. I have been a taoist before and we consume those food that was prayed in the temple. Nothing is wasted. It goes the same for the worship of the Bible God and for all religions such as Buddhism, Islam etc. Those unconsumed food were given away in charity. It is believe by giving the unconsumed food in charity and kindness, blessings are reciprocated. It is certainly mentally healthy to know that we have done good things for our fellowmen who were less privileged.


The Bible most certainly does declare that natural bodily functions are sinful! If it was merely because bodily discharges are dirty as you say, then why aren't sacrifices requires every time someone takes a crap or a pee? Feces really is dirty the minute it comes out of the body, whereas semen and menstrual fluids are not.
No, bodily function is not sinful but the unlawful pervous act of bodily function is sinful. Show me a verse that says bodily function is sinful... if not then that is crap. Feces and pee that just came out of the body from healthy people are not considered as dirty as the germs that comes with the feces and pee are mostly killed or were neutralised by good bacteria, but when bodily discharges be it feces, pee, menses, semen are not wash for some time are considered as dirty as the bad germs will start to grow exponentially.


There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food, but we are not talking about the ethics of killing animals for food. What we are talking about is the notion that is promoted in the Bible, that somehow the killing of an animal as is required under the Mosaic Law, cleanses people and forgives their sins. Sacrificing animals and humans to appease a capricious god is a very barbaric and primitive idea that many cultures practiced in ancient times. It is an idea born out of ignorance, and needs to be soundly rejected.
As I have said before and [I] have given some verses to prove that it is not the sacrifice that is important but charity, kindness, forgiveness, righteousness, repentance that comes with the offerings that is important. We are equally barbaric if we think of ourselves killing animals for food to fill our stomachs and make us happy during our celebrations. I see no difference between festive celebrations and sin offerings. To me it is like a barbeque session to celebrate festivities or to celebrate forgiveness of sin. In fact ,if you think of it, many of our festive celebrations and holidays are in fact pagan worshipping....Easter is in fact worshipping of the god Esther, Sunday is worshipping the Sun god, Thursday...the god Thor, Saturday...the god Saturn, Xmas, the worship of Christ or the worship of Santa Claus, Halloween... worship of spirits?, Valentine's Day...the worship of St. Valentine etc. As such and to be fair, then if celebration of sin forgiveness is to be abolish so are our many festivities which were pagan worshipping in origin. See wiki on festive pagan worshipping:

http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm

The sacrifice of animals in sin offering serves many purposes:
1. It reminds us that we sin everyday even without knowing and that God will forgive our sin if we repent or ask for forgiveness of sin.
2. It reminds us that if we sin, we may end up like the slaughtered animals
3. It helps us to do charity to the poor who can't even afford meat or nutritious foods
4. The sacrificial animal serves as a witness to the covenant between God and man.
5. The death of the sacrificial animals signify the death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin and a way to eternal life if we believe in Jesus
6. It serves as a festive celebration for goodwill and friendship among the people.


What the Bible is full of is myths and fairy tales. It is full of the imagining of primitive men who were ignorant of science and thus made up gods to fill the gaps in their knowledge. Fortunately many people throughout history have took off their religious blinders and discovered great things that has helped humankind greatly. No thanks to the Biblegod, people discovered antibiotics and all the other medical discoveries that helped humans to live healthier lives.
As I said before, there are many ultra-scientific ideas which you consider as myths and fairy tales that were present in the Bible and we are on the verge of doing what Jesus disciples have done... raising the dead, curing illnesses instantly etc. BTW, where did the fungus that the antibiotics made came from? There were ancient therapies that made use of antibiotics such as using spider webs, moulds to treat wounds etc. I believe God let us develop ourselves the technologies as we mature...or do we want to be spoon fed in everything? The important thing is not the technologies but how we used the technologies for good or for evil? It is like teaching Hitler how to make atomic weapons and get everyone of us killed and the world destroyed. You don't give loaded guns to children, do you?

I have asked a question previously and I am not sure why you never answer it: Will humans developed to such an advanced , say a thousand years from now, be able to create animals, plants, the sun, planets etc.? or supposed we managed to reach a stage of inter stellar travel, will the primitive inhabitants of a habitable planet that we visited see us as gods with our advanced technologies... a super intelligent beings? What should we do to ensure that these people will developed and used advanced technologies in a safe and good way if we taught them? Do we teach them everything gradually to allow them to learn and cope on their own with some help from us so as not to let them go into cultural shock? From experience with our own primitive people such as the Indian tribes of the Amazon, the pigmies of the Congo, we know that it is impossible to teach primitive people to adapt to our modern day lives in such a short span of time; it may require centuries with many hurdles to overcome...education, culture, science, laws etc.

God Bless. :):pray:

CWH
06-06-2014, 06:12 AM
If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

How can this be explained?
Same as I put it to you Craig, the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US forces killed every one including thousands of children who were not blamed for the crimes of their fathers who were not morally involved in the atrocities of WW2. This was done to force a quick surrender of the Japanese forces so as to save millions of Americans and Japanese lives but at the expense of thousands of women and children; how can this be explained? And Rose will declare gender bias against women and the works of bronze age men.:D

One way to explain is the law of the universal good.... between the devil and the deep blue sea. This is an ethical question in which there seems to be no/either right or wrong ...To sacrifice a small number of lives for the saving of a large number of lives.....To sacrifice evil criminal people or the good people...which one do you choose? To sacrifice hopeless people or to sacrifice people with hope? Unlike humans, what God can destroy, He can raise. What God killed, He can brought them back to life again; where is the issue? And the ones He raised will be better than the ones killed as with the children of Job analogous to destroying faulty cars to make better ones.


It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

moral = people following a law
immoral = people who break a law
amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws.
It is the same as any law in which there are exceptions. It is ok to kill and murder your enemies in wars. It is ok for the police car to over speed in the course of their duty in fighting crimes; it is ok to kill in self-defense. Or do you prefer a law that is rigid and unchangeable regardless of prudence and good reason. Do you condemn someone who steal food in order to feed his starving dying wife and children? The Sabbath is made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath; the Law is made for Man and not Man for the Law...understand?

God Bless.:pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-06-2014, 07:17 AM
Same as I put it to you Craig, the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US forces killed every one including thousands of children who were not blamed for the crimes of their fathers who were not morally involved in the atrocities of WW2. This was done to force a quick surrender of the Japanese forces so as to save millions of Americans and Japanese lives but at the expense of thousands of women and children; how can this be explained? And Rose will declare gender bias against women and the works of bronze age men.

One way to explain is the law of the universal good.... between the devil and the deep blue sea. This is an ethical question in which there seems to be no/either right or wrong ...To sacrifice a small number of lives for the saving of a large number of lives.....To sacrifice evil criminal people or the good people...which one do you choose? To sacrifice hopeless people or to sacrifice people with hope? Unlike humans, what God can destroy, He can raise. What God killed, He can brought them back to life again; where is the issue? And the ones He raised will be better than the ones killed as with the children of Job analogous to destroying faulty cars to make better ones.


My point was that God can kill regardless of innocence, so must be beyond moral law.

Your point seems to be that killing the innocent may be an act for the greater good, and therefore is motivated by the moral law.

Your other point is that when God kills, he can also raise up - so an apparent loss of life could actually be a good thing - if what you are raised up to is better.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-06-2014, 07:40 AM
Another passage that will need an explanation is the one where a woman undergoes trial if she is suspected of unfaithfulness

She has to drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor. If she falls ill, she is guilty.

Given that dirt and germs generally make a person ill, this law will convict many innocent people as guilty. So this law seems both unfair and inefficient.

It is unfair because many people will be found guilty who are in fact innocent. And the law is stupid because it is inefficient at achieving it's desired purpose - namely the separating of the guilty from the innocent.

To ensure that the innocent were NEVER falsely convicted would require that the innocent were always protected from the effects of the dirt - a supernatural intervention in every case. And to ensure that the guilty are ALWAYS found guilty would require that their immune systems be suppressed supernaturally, so that they always fall ill.

Would it not have been better for the man to gather evidence and produce witnesses, rather than subject the woman to eating poisonous dirt and seeing if God will save her? In the Middle Ages the same concept was applied to people suspected of a crime. They put their arms into boiling water. If they remain un-burnt they were innocent.

This case is interesting because if God commanded it so then God created a rather stupid law because it does not separate the guilty from the innocent. The law could only possibly be effective if God intervened supernaturally in every case - it would have been easier for God to just say who the innocent party was rather than get them to eat dirt then save them from it.

And the unnecessary stress involved for the woman.

CWH
06-06-2014, 08:02 AM
My point was that God can kill regardless of innocence, so must be beyond moral law.

Your point seems to be that killing the innocent may be an act for the greater good, and therefore is motivated by the moral law.
My point is God ways and thoughts are higher than ours. What seems to be immoral can turn out to be moral. We may not be able to understand some of the things that God did; same as we may not be able to understand why a person behaves the way he behaves, There must be a reason which we have yet to comprehend. You seems to like rigid inflexible laws whereas my point is it is unwise to have rigid inflexible laws which do not accept exceptions which may turned out to be cruel and unfair. God laws are not rigid and is flexible; it is based on justice, mercy and reasonable.

Yes, the act of the greater good of which examples are found in several areas in the Bible. A very good example, the death of Jesus saves millions who believe in Him.


Your other point is that when God kills, he can also raise up - so an apparent loss of life could actually be a good thing - if what you are raised up to is better.
Show me the passage in the Bible in which what God raised is bad? If not, my point stands.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4179/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4179-20631.jpg

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-06-2014, 09:22 AM
If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

How can this be explained?

It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

moral = people following a law
immoral = people who break a law
amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws. One day he might destroy the whole universe and recreate another.

If God is beyond moral law then if God commands you to do something, then you have absolute authority to do it no matter how objectionable it might seem.

So most arguments about the badness or goodness of God are attempts to reduce God to a human level, so as to make Him accountable.

Hello Craig,

You bring up a lot of good points. :thumb: But the bottom line is the only way humans can understand anything is through our human understanding, this is why it becomes very obvious that the Biblegod is a construct of the human mind.

It would make no sense whatsoever for a creator god to give moral laws to his creation, and then proceed to command that they break those very laws?? :confused: And if god is not subject to his own laws, then why give them in the first place?? Of course the only answer to those questions is that man is the author of all those biased and senseless laws found in the Bible. The Bible only brings confusion to any reasonable and logical mind trying to figure it out, because of the abundance of contradictions it contains. :dizzy:

The whole point of my booklet Gender Bias in the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/)is to show how biased and unjust many of the biblical laws are, proving that their origins lie in the minds of men. When I began to question all the inconsistencies in the Bible as you are doing now, is when I came to the conclusion that the ONLY possible solution to the problem of all the immoralities and unjust behavior is man-made.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-06-2014, 09:40 AM
Another passage that will need an explanation is the one where a woman undergoes trial if she is suspected of unfaithfulness

She has to drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor. If she falls ill, she is guilty.

Given that dirt and germs generally make a person ill, this law will convict many innocent people as guilty. So this law seems both unfair and inefficient.

It is unfair because many people will be found guilty who are in fact innocent. And the law is stupid because it is inefficient at achieving it's desired purpose - namely the separating of the guilty from the innocent.

To ensure that the innocent were NEVER falsely convicted would require that the innocent were always protected from the effects of the dirt - a supernatural intervention in every case. And to ensure that the guilty are ALWAYS found guilty would require that their immune systems be suppressed supernaturally, so that they always fall ill.

Would it not have been better for the man to gather evidence and produce witnesses, rather than subject the woman to eating poisonous dirt and seeing if God will save her? In the Middle Ages the same concept was applied to people suspected of a crime. They put their arms into boiling water. If they remain un-burnt they were innocent.

This case is interesting because if God commanded it so then God created a rather stupid law because it does not separate the guilty from the innocent. The law could only possibly be effective if God intervened supernaturally in every case - it would have been easier for God to just say who the innocent party was rather than get them to eat dirt then save them from it.

And the unnecessary stress involved for the woman.

Hi Craig,

The only question that needs to be asked to understand the origins of the jealousy law is: who could possibly invent such a barbaric law? The answer is A JEALOUS MAN! His fingerprints are all over it. :p

If you were to apply the same logic and reason to the many other unjust and immoral laws found in the Bible, your conclusions will be the same. Over and over again, unnecessary stress and harm is inflicted upon innocent parties, all because of the barbaric laws found in the Bible and attributed to its god. That in and of itself should be enough to chuck the Bible into the dustbin of history as a moral guidebook.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-06-2014, 10:29 AM
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63750#post63750)

Hello Cheow
NO, No, no! Human consumption was not the reason that animals were sacrificed under the Mosaic Law. Yes, the priests did eat some of the sacrificed meat, but that is not the reason the animals were sacrificed in the first place. It clearly states in the Mosaic Law that the killing of animals and the shedding of blood is required by the Biblegod to cleanse and forgive iniquity.

Hi Rose,
Yes, it is for human consumption and there are numerous verses in the BIble that says so ...for the priests, the family members and others. I have been a taoist before and we consume those food that was prayed in the temple. Nothing is wasted. It goes the same for the worship of the Bible God and for all religions such as Buddhism, Islam etc. Those unconsumed food were given away in charity. It is believe by giving the unconsumed food in charity and kindness, blessings are reciprocated. It is certainly mentally healthy to know that we have done good things for our fellowmen who were less privileged.

The reason for the sacrifice was to appease a god who was angry with human sinfulness! Yes, the food was eaten, BUT that was NOT the reason the animal was killed in the first place ... the animal was killed because of sin.



No, bodily function is not sinful but the unlawful pervous act of bodily function is sinful. Show me a verse that says bodily function is sinful... if not then that is crap. Feces and pee that just came out of the body from healthy people are not considered as dirty as the germs that comes with the feces and pee are mostly killed or were neutralised by good bacteria, but when bodily discharges be it feces, pee, menses, semen are not wash for some time are considered as dirty as the bad germs will start to grow exponentially.

Are you telling me that nocturnal emissions are considered a unlawful act??
Deut.23:10-11 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.


Or that a woman's menstrual cycle is an unlawful act?? In the verse below it clearly says that a sin offering needs to be made for the issue of a woman's uncleanness.
Lev.15:29-30 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.



Feces is a waste product and thus contains harmful bacteria! Semen and menses are not waste products. The Bible says that people are unclean after emissions of semen or menstrual fluids, but not after taking a crap! :lol: Pretty crazy stuff!


Take care,
Rose

CWH
06-06-2014, 04:54 PM
Another passage that will need an explanation is the one where a woman undergoes trial if she is suspected of unfaithfulness

She has to drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor. If she falls ill, she is guilty.

Given that dirt and germs generally make a person ill, this law will convict many innocent people as guilty. So this law seems both unfair and inefficient.

It is unfair because many people will be found guilty who are in fact innocent. And the law is stupid because it is inefficient at achieving it's desired purpose - namely the separating of the guilty from the innocent.

To ensure that the innocent were NEVER falsely convicted would require that the innocent were always protected from the effects of the dirt - a supernatural intervention in every case. And to ensure that the guilty are ALWAYS found guilty would require that their immune systems be suppressed supernaturally, so that they always fall ill.
How do you explain when the innocent did not get ill from drinking the same polluted water?....unless God had a hand in the miraculous judgement.


Would it not have been better for the man to gather evidence and produce witnesses, rather than subject the woman to eating poisonous dirt and seeing if God will save her? In the Middle Ages the same concept was applied to people suspected of a crime. They put their arms into boiling water. If they remain un-burnt they were innocent.

This case is interesting because if God commanded it so then God created a rather stupid law because it does not separate the guilty from the innocent. The law could only possibly be effective if God intervened supernaturally in every case - it would have been easier for God to just say who the innocent party was rather than get them to eat dirt then save them from it.

And the unnecessary stress involved for the woman.
How do you explained the innocent who will not get their arm burnt? ....unless God helped in the judgement then?

Same as I would put to you Craig, there are many seemingly stupid and unfair laws in the US which we may not be able to comprehend. These laws seem to have a local flavor which only the locals in those areas will be able to understand which foreigners will find strange and ridiculous. Some of God's laws were probably the same using the local flavor and tradition and beliefs in ancient Middle East. The other possibility was that God also had a hand then in the just judgement using His divine ability to read the hearts of peoples' intentions and minds whilst combining local traditions and beliefs, for example, God may have made the guilty ill drinking dirty water while those who were innocent will not got ill from drinking the same dirty water in full view of the congregation. Obviously, such laws cannot be applied when God did not come into play in the judgement and other laws would have been used. All common laws are derived from norms, beliefs and traditions. Some stupid and ridiculous laws in the US:


In some states, including California, Florida, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii a motorist can be cited for driving too slowly.

In counties having populations of not less than 56,500 nor more than 59,000, according to the 1970 or any subsequent federal decennial census, domino games shall be lawful in billiard rooms or other rooms in which billiard tables are located.

A United States Federal law states one can be fine upto $1,000,000 for pertaking in the act of Genocide.

A United States federal law makes it illegal to issue a fake Weather Bureau forecast.

Alabama
State code allows only 5 minutes for one to vote.

Arkansas
Arkansas drive-in aren't very convenient thanks to this law... No person shall drive a motor vehicle onto the premises of a drive-in restaurant and leave the premises without parking such motor vehicle, unless there is no unoccupied parking space available on the premises.

Sounding of horns at sandwich shops. No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m.

California
In Los Angeles, It is not legal to bathe two babies at the same time in the same tub.
In Riverside, Kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.
In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff. Source: 17-32 Mask or disguise--Wearing.
In Walnut, It shall be unlawful for any person to fly, above an altitude of ten feet above the ground, or near any electrical conductive public utility wires or facilities, any kite or balloon which has a body or any parts, tail, string or ribbon Source: 17-1 Kite flying restricted

Colorado
Colorado Water laws prohibit the use of rain barrels or any methods to catch rain for use. They claim the rain has already been legally allocated to the state and individual may not capture and use water to which he/she does not have a right. New Laws passed in June 2009 eradicate this law.

Connecticut
No hanky panky allowed in Connecticut.. A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. It is illegal for unmarried couples to commit lewd acts and live together Source: 775.082 or s. 775.083

Illinois
A state law requires that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
In Zion, It is illegal for anyone to give cats, dogs, or other domesticated animals a lighted cigar.

Indiana
In Indianapolis, No horse shall be driven or ridden on any street in the city at a speed in excess of ten (10) miles per hour. Source: Code 1975, � 29-5

Iowa
In Ottumwa, It is illegal for any man, within the corporate city limits, to wink at any female with whom he is "unacquainted."

Kansas
In Topeka, Servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups.

Kentucky
A female shall not appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state. section 1376m-1, 1376m-2 Repealed: January 1, 1975

Louisiana
In Mansfield, Anyone caught wearing sagging pants that expose underwear will be subject to a fine of up to $150 plus court costs � or face up to 15 days in jail. A court later overturned the law, declaring it unconstitutional.
In New Orleans, Fire Code outlaws the cursing of firefighters while they are in the performance of thier duties. Source: Sec. 74-2

Maryland
In Baltimore, It is illegal to take a lion to the movies.

Minnesota
Many municipalities in Minnesota (including Anoka County) still have a Vagrancy law on the books that makes it misdemeanor for a person, with ability to work, who is without lawful means of support, and does not seek employment, and is not under 18 years of age.

Mississippi
A state law prohibits the seduction of a female over the age of eighteen by promised or pretended marriage. Source: � 97-29-55. Codes, 1892, � 1298;

Nebraska
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

Nevada
In Reno, It is unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or maintain any marathon dancing or marathon walking Source: Code 1966, � 11.12.130

New Jersey
In Bergen County, Blue laws still in effect. The only retail outlets permitted to be open on Sundays are grocery stores and liquor stores. L

New York
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
In Carmel, A man cannot be seen in public while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In Greene, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks.
In Ocean City, It is illegal to eat in the street in residential neighborhoods, and the only beverage you can drink on the beach is water in a clear plastic bottle.
In Ocean City, It is illegal for men to go topless in the center of town.
In Staten Island, You may only water your lawn if the hose is held in your hand.
In Staten Island, It is illegal for a father to call his son a "faggot" or "queer" in an effort to curb "girlie behavior."

New York City
You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.
Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
It is illegal to have permit dancing in an establishment that sells food without a cabaret license. Link
It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing "body hugging clothing."
Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".

North Carolina
It is illegal to hold more than two sessions of bingo per week, and those sessions may not exceed 5 hours each session. Source: � 14-309.8. Link

Ohio
In Oxford, It is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face.
In Youngstown, You may not run out of gas. Source: Youngstown City Ordinances, Section 331.44 Link

Oklahoma
It Is Illegal To Have A sleeping Donkey In Your Bathtub After 7pm

South Carolina
There's no place for fun... It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine. Source: 20-7-8915

Tennessee
It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk, or to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise transfer any live skunk, except that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply to bona fide zoological parks and research institutions. Source: 70-4-208. Unlawful importation of skunks - Penalty.
You must beleive in god to be elected into office. You also are not permitted into office if you were in contendant in a duel. Source: Tennessee Constitution - Article IX

Vermont
In Montpelier, No law was violated when 42 cyclists rode through Vermont's capital naked on May 14, 2009. The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus reported that Vermont has no ban on public nudity. Disrobing in public is a crime, but the cyclists disrobed before venturing out and would not be charged. Source: http://www.wptz.com/news/19749434/detail.html

West Virginia
If any person arrived at the age of discretion profanely curse or swear or get drunk in public, he shall be fined by a justice one dollar for each offense Source: �61-8-15. Profane swearing and drunkenness; penalty.
It is illegal to taunt someone for not accepting a challenge for a duel. Actual: If any person post another, or in writing or in print use any reproachful or contemptuous language to or concerning another, for not fighting a duel, or for not sending or accepting a challenge, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in jail not more than six months, or fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. Source: �61-2-24. Taunting for nonparticipation in duel; penalty.
State code deems it unlawful for any person to have in his possession or to display any red or black flag. Source: West Virginia Code 61-1-6

Wisconsin
The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer. Source: 97.18(4)
In Sun Prairie, No rider of a bicycle shall remove both hands from the handlebars or practice any trick or fancy riding in any street in the city nor shall any bicycle rider carry or ride any other person so that two persons are on the bicycle at one time, unless a seat is provided for a second person. Source: Section 10.32.020 Manner of operation restricted.
In Wauwatosa, No person shall spit... upon the floor or stairways of any public hall or building or upon the floor ...or upon any sidewalk abutting on any public street or alley of said city.


God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-06-2014, 05:07 PM
Same as I would put to you Craig, there are many seemingly stupid and unfair laws in the US which we may not be able to comprehend. These laws seem to have a local flavor which only the locals in those areas will be able to understand which foreigners will find strange and ridiculous. Some of God's laws were probably the same using the local flavor and tradition and beliefs in ancient Middle East. The other possibility was that God also had a hand then in the just judgement using His divine ability to read the hearts of peoples' intentions and minds whilst combining local traditions and beliefs, for example, God may have made the guilty ill drinking dirty water while those who were innocent will not got ill from drinking the same dirty water in full view of the congregation. All common laws are derived from norms, beliefs and traditions. Some stupid and ridiculous laws in the US:



God Bless.:pray:

So, the god you believe in is on par with what the locals believed in primitive societies? That sure doesn't say much for the Biblegod's intelligence. :lol: Come on! Do your excuses and justifications know no limits?

The reason people find many of the biblical laws ridiculous, is because THEY ARE! :p

CWH
06-06-2014, 05:15 PM
So, the god you believe in is on par with what the locals believed in primitive societies? That sure doesn't say much for the Biblegod's intelligence. :lol: Come on! Do your excuses and justifications know no limits?

The reason people find many of the biblical laws ridiculous, is because THEY ARE! :p

How about the ridiculous laws in the US? are they also from primitive societies? That sure say much about American intelligence.

God Bless.:pray::pray:

Rose
06-06-2014, 06:50 PM
How about the ridiculous laws in the US? are they also from primitive societies? That sure say much about American intelligence.

God Bless.:pray::pray:

Yes, the ridiculous laws in the US were made by ignorant men.

CWH
06-07-2014, 03:04 AM
Yes, the ridiculous laws in the US were made by ignorant men.
Then they are stupid enough not to change the laws! Why don't they? or perhaps there are other reasons that we foreigners to their specific areas may not understand same as we may not undderstand many godly things. Jesus said that if you can't even understand or believe earthly things how can you understand or believe in heavenly things?

John 3:10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

God Bless.:pray:

Unregistered
06-07-2014, 06:07 AM
Moral problems are found throughout the Bible. Taking the story of Adam and Eve -

If Adam and Eve sinned, then fair enough, BUT why hold all of their blood descendants responsible for Adam's sin?? Punishing the blood descendants for the crimes of the fathers seems to be a common thing in the Bible. It is certainly unjust by our modern standards, and we would never convict a person based on what his father, grandfather or, in this case, his very distant ancestor, has done

It is simply wrong to do so, yet the Bible starts right out by asserting that all Adam's descendants will be punished for the sin of Adam.

All I can say is that this is absolutely not how we do justice today, in any court. In other words, it conflicts with our current morality.

In the same way, when the Egyptians would not let the Hebrews go, God slaughtered all the Firstborn - innocent children - for the sins of their fathers. I am not sure why God punishes children for the sins of the fathers, but it seems immoral by OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to defend the Bible as a good and moral document any more....much to my regret....but the facts have to be faced

All I can say is that God's acts are immoral by our standards, which does not mean that God is necessarily evil, since God may be beyond Good and Evil. But one thing is for sure - the Bible cannot be upheld as a good book in any meaningful way.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-07-2014, 06:10 AM
Moral problems are found throughout the Bible. Taking the story of Adam and Eve -

If Adam and Eve sinned, then fair enough, BUT why hold all of their blood descendants responsible for Adam's sin?? Punishing the blood descendants for the crimes of the fathers seems to be a common thing in the Bible. It is certainly unjust by our modern standards, and we would never convict a person based on what his father, grandfather or, in this case, his very distant ancestor, has done

It is simply wrong to do so, yet the Bible starts right out by asserting that all Adam's descendants will be punished for the sin of Adam.

All I can say is that this is absolutely not how we do justice today, in any court. In other words, it conflicts with our current morality.

In the same way, when the Egyptians would not let the Hebrews go, God slaughtered all the Firstborn - innocent children - for the sins of their fathers. I am not sure why God punishes children for the sins of the fathers, but it seems immoral by OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to defend the Bible as a good and moral document any more....if what we consider as moral are our current standards.

All I can say is that God's acts are immoral by our standards, which does not mean that God is necessarily evil, because God may have a completely different idea of what constitutes sin or evil. But one thing is for sure - the Bible cannot be upheld as a good book by our current standards.

It seem to me that the Bible has some very unique ideas about sin. It believes that sin can be inherited along a blood line. This sounds very metaphysical. Maybe it is true...The mechanisms of sin transference may just be beyond our current comprehension. However this does not change the fact that Biblical ethics appear as immoral by our current understanding and ethics.

CWH
06-07-2014, 08:10 AM
Moral problems are found throughout the Bible. Taking the story of Adam and Eve -

If Adam and Eve sinned, then fair enough, BUT why hold all of their blood descendants responsible for Adam's sin?? Punishing the blood descendants for the crimes of the fathers seems to be a common thing in the Bible. It is certainly unjust by our modern standards, and we would never convict a person based on what his father, grandfather or, in this case, his very distant ancestor, has done

It is simply wrong to do so, yet the Bible starts right out by asserting that all Adam's descendants will be punished for the sin of Adam.

All I can say is that this is absolutely not how we do justice today, in any court. In other words, it conflicts with our current morality.

In the same way, when the Egyptians would not let the Hebrews go, God slaughtered all the Firstborn - innocent children - for the sins of their fathers. I am not sure why God punishes children for the sins of the fathers, but it seems immoral by OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to defend the Bible as a good and moral document any more....if what we consider as moral are our current standards.

All I can say is that God's acts are immoral by our standards, which does not mean that God is necessarily evil, because God may have a completely different idea of what constitutes sin or evil. But one thing is for sure - the Bible cannot be upheld as a good book by our current standards.

It seem to me that the Bible has some very unique ideas about sin. It believes that sin can be inherited along a blood line. This sounds very metaphysical. Maybe it is true...The mechanisms of sin transference may just be beyond our current comprehension. However this does not change the fact that Biblical ethics appear as immoral by our current understanding and ethics.
It is the same as me saying why must the Japanese children and womenfolks died in the atomic bombings for the sins and crimes of their fathers in WW2? And the radiation diseases will caused mutations to the genes of their descendants. This is wrong and immoral based on our current standards, therefore, the American government cannot be trusted or upheld as a moral standard to follow

God Bless.:pray:

runningman
06-07-2014, 08:38 AM
Craig. in two isolated cases which are unique, two men, Adam and Christ, acted in ways that affect all humanity. Death came into all people as sin came into the cosmos thru the one act of the one man, Adam. At the far end of the spectrum, life and peace to all through the obedience of Christ. Joel

Rose
06-07-2014, 09:27 AM
It is the same as me saying why must the Japanese children and womenfolks died in the atomic bombings for the sins and crimes of their fathers in WW2? And the radiation diseases will caused mutations to the genes of their descendants. This is wrong and immoral based on our current standards, therefore, the American government cannot be trusted or upheld as a moral standard to follow

God Bless.:pray:

Do you realize that you are continually comparing the Biblegod, to the thinking and actions of men ... which only proves my point that the Bible and its god were conceived in the minds of men.

Rose
06-07-2014, 10:02 AM
Moral problems are found throughout the Bible. Taking the story of Adam and Eve -

If Adam and Eve sinned, then fair enough, BUT why hold all of their blood descendants responsible for Adam's sin?? Punishing the blood descendants for the crimes of the fathers seems to be a common thing in the Bible. It is certainly unjust by our modern standards, and we would never convict a person based on what his father, grandfather or, in this case, his very distant ancestor, has done

It is simply wrong to do so, yet the Bible starts right out by asserting that all Adam's descendants will be punished for the sin of Adam.

All I can say is that this is absolutely not how we do justice today, in any court. In other words, it conflicts with our current morality.

In the same way, when the Egyptians would not let the Hebrews go, God slaughtered all the Firstborn - innocent children - for the sins of their fathers. I am not sure why God punishes children for the sins of the fathers, but it seems immoral by OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to defend the Bible as a good and moral document any more....if what we consider as moral are our current standards.

All I can say is that God's acts are immoral by our standards, which does not mean that God is necessarily evil, because God may have a completely different idea of what constitutes sin or evil. But one thing is for sure - the Bible cannot be upheld as a good book by our current standards.

It seem to me that the Bible has some very unique ideas about sin. It believes that sin can be inherited along a blood line. This sounds very metaphysical. Maybe it is true...The mechanisms of sin transference may just be beyond our current comprehension. However this does not change the fact that Biblical ethics appear as immoral by our current understanding and ethics.

Hello Craig,

You are absolutely right! The Bible cannot be defended as a moral guidebook. This is the problem with many sacred books like the Bible that people believe to be inspired by a deity, they are forever frozen in time and unable to be changed. Looking back through history it is very easy to see that peoples morals are continually getting better as knowledge increases. Biblical thought is stuck in the Bronze Age with no hope of change because a perfect god cannot change his mind.

Anyone who believes in equal human rights can see that the Bible violates human rights at every level. Justice, fairness and equality do not change over time, but people perceptions do. The biblical mindset was male based, and men thought they were superior to women, so they saw no problem in owning women as property and denying them equal rights, and naturally the god these men created also believed men should rule over women.

As a moral guidebook, the Bible belongs in the dustbin of history. It's time to move on and leave the Bible where it belongs ... in the past as a document of human history.

Take care,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-07-2014, 11:41 PM
It is the same as me saying why must the Japanese children and womenfolks died in the atomic bombings for the sins and crimes of their fathers in WW2? And the radiation diseases will caused mutations to the genes of their descendants. This is wrong and immoral based on our current standards, therefore, the American government cannot be trusted or upheld as a moral standard to follow



I think your point is that Adam sinned, and we are co-lateral damage. His act somehow affected all his descendants in a physical and spiritual way. We are not punished for the sins of Adam, we are just suffering the fallout.

I suppose, Adam's sin caused alienation from God, loss of the Shekinah that had clothed Adam, and also opened a gateway to negative forces.

CWH
06-08-2014, 05:52 AM
I think your point is that Adam sinned, and we are co-lateral damage. His act somehow affected all his descendants in a physical and spiritual way. We are not punished for the sins of Adam, we are just suffering the fallout.

I suppose, Adam's sin caused alienation from God, loss of the Shekinah that had clothed Adam, and also opened a gateway to negative forces.
Hi Craig,

The creation of Adam was like an experiment to test the capabilities and bugs of a product. We are not exactly punished for the sin of Adam and Eve. See my thread on "The robot maker and his robot in the creation story".

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5712-Robot-maker-and-His-robots-in-the-Creation-Story

Supposed we are all incorrigible criminals...robbers, rapists, murderers, thieves etc. say 90% of the population except for a few good righteous ones i.e. 10%, what will the government do? The government will try to catch them and put them in jail so that they will not caused more mischiefs. Of course, it is impossible to catch everyone of them furthermore their descendants will also carry their criminal genes and propagate the crimes. Giving them long life is not an option as that will only increase the criminal problems in the country, giving them eternal life would be worse as that will mean crimes will be worst and last forever. Killing then would be too cruel. The best option will be to restrict the lifespan of the criminals to a much shorter time of a maximum of 120 years instead of 1,000 years so that the criminal rate will be more manageable. But to be fair to all, even the good 10% ones will also be restricted to a maximum lifespan of 120 years. This was exactly what happened to Adam and his generations in the pre-Flood era as it was written in Genesis 6 that their hearts were exceedingly evil. Note that Adam and Eve's generations comprised of both good and evil people due to the corruption by the Serpent i.e, evil genes.

Supposed you are a car maker and most of the cars that you made didn't meet the qualities and safety standards or somehow developed all sorts of mechanical problems and thus became unsafe; you would keep some of the good and safe cars and destroy all the bad ones. But it is impossible to recall all the bad cars. This was what happened during the Great Flood when all humans and land creatures were destroyed except for a few good ones. Even some of the good ones left will eventually have problems and thus becomes unsafe, the best option will be to let all of them run their shelve life until they die off and then make better ones as replacements. Better ones will be replaced as each generations die off. This is exactly what is happening now; humans progress better eventually amidst the good and the bad. There will come a time when humans have reached its maximum progress, then all the bad will be gathered in one place and be destroyed. Only when all the bad were destroyed can the good be given eternal life as that will ensure that good will continue forever and the bad completely distinguished. See parable of the wheat and the tares:

Matthew 13;24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Many of the atrocities committed by God that we see in the Bible are just some ways in which God tried to make evil more manageable for each generations. It is a reminder that evil will eventually be destroyed and the good triumphed.Of course, I believe Merciful God will give chances for those he destroyed so that they can becomes better ones. See my thread:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5749-Does-God-given-chances-to-evil-men-through-rebirth

God Bless:pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-08-2014, 06:53 AM
I was speaking with Michael today about the OT laws. He said that the Law should be taken not just on a literal level - but it's interpretation should also be in the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is deeper, and reflects the character and overall context of the law.

He said that Jesus summed up the spirit of the law when he said "Love others as you love yourself"

Interpretation of any other law must always be in this spirit.

If the underlying spirit of the OT law can be summed up as Do unto others as you would do unto yourself, then perhaps passages that appear bad are simply being interpreted in the wrong spirit.

He said that the Law, in a way, is similar to the Temple, in having an outer public area , an inner court and a holy of holies. Similarly, the Law has a literal and public aspect, and a deeper spiritual aspect that reflects the spirit behind it.

Jesus often criticised the Pharisees about their literal interpretation of the laws about working on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were missing the spirit of the law, which was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The spirit of the OT law is probably the spirit of Love, compassion, self-control etc , ie the Holy Spirit. Interpreting law whilst ignoring the Holy Spirit underlying it, may lead to misinterpretations.

CWH
06-08-2014, 07:38 AM
The reason for the sacrifice was to appease a god who was angry with human sinfulness! Yes, the food was eaten, BUT that was NOT the reason the animal was killed in the first place ... the animal was killed because of sin.
Sacrifice is not done to appease someone. If you sacrifice your life say for your children, who are you appeasing? It is out of love, out of kindness, out of good principle that you sacrifice your life for your children so that they may live. No the animal was killed as a reminder of sacrifice for sin and a reminder of death if you sinned. And when you aet that sacrificial animal is a symbolic contract that you agree not to sin.


Are you telling me that nocturnal emissions are considered a unlawful act??
Deut.23:10-11 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.
Nocturnal emission is not an unlawful act but is a hygienic issue. The key word here is uncleanliness" by reason of uncleanliness"; and it stated that the man has to be outside under the sun for several hours until evening so that ultraviolet rays and dry fresh air will destroy the germs.


Or that a woman's menstrual cycle is an unlawful act?? In the verse below it clearly says that a sin offering needs to be made for the issue of a woman's uncleanness. Lev.15:29-30 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [I]for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
{/QUOTE]
Menstrual cycle is not an unlawful act but is of hygienic issue . The key word is uncleanliness "for the issue of her uncleanliness". The sin offering is to remind of Eve being beguiled by the Serpent which is why it was to be done on the eighth day symbolic of the day of a new beginning.

[QUOTE]Feces is a waste product and thus contains harmful bacteria! Semen and menses are not waste products. The Bible says that people are unclean after emissions of semen or menstrual fluids, but not after taking a crap! :lol: Pretty crazy stuff!
FRESH feces from a HEALTHY person does not contain a lot of harmful bacteria. Mosyt of the bacteria are of the good or less harmful type. A good example are fresh urine from a healthy person which does'nt smell bad because there is very little or no germs but if left for sometime outside, the bacteria from outside grows and the urine will starts to smell. Fresh urine from an unhealthy person such as a person suffering from urinary tract infection smells bad because the urine already contains lots of bacteria. there are incidences whereby people drank their own urine to quench their thirst for survival and they didn't get sick. Do you know that fresh feces from healthy people has been used to cure people from chronic diarrhea because the good bacteria in the fresh transplanted feces propagate in the gut neutralizing and replacing the bad bacteria causing the diarrhea?

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20140424/frozen-as-good-as-fresh-for-fecal-transplants-for-diarrhea-study

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-08-2014, 07:50 AM
I was speaking with Michael today about the OT laws. He said that the Law should be taken not just on a literal level - but it's interpretation should also be in the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is deeper, and reflects the character and overall context of the law.

He said that Jesus summed up the spirit of the law when he said "Love others as you love yourself"

Interpretation of any other law must always be in this spirit.

If the underlying spirit of the OT law can be summed up as Do unto others as you would do unto yourself, then perhaps passages that appear bad are simply being interpreted in the wrong spirit.

He said that the Law, in a way, is similar to the Temple, in having an outer public area , an inner court and a holy of holies. Similarly, the Law has a literal and public aspect, and a deeper spiritual aspect that reflects the spirit behind it.

Jesus often criticised the Pharisees about their literal interpretation of the laws about working on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were missing the spirit of the law, which was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Craig, you are absolutely correct, and such a wise insight.; the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, you are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.:p How I wish Rose could have the same insight like you. The laws are not to be taken strictly, rigidly and literally as there are exception to the rules. For more details, you may want to refer to my thread on " The Ten Commandments":

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5698-The-Ten-Commandments

God Bless.:pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-08-2014, 08:04 AM
Often Jesus went beyond the letter of the Law and instructed His disciples in the spirit of the Law. A couple of obvious examples of this can be seen as He cautioned that if any lusted they had already committed adultery, and if they called a brother a fool they were in danger of Hell fire [Matthew 5:19-30]. Each of the above examples are far beyond anything the Law ever suggested.





The "spirit of the law" was to be followed in the Old Testament just as it is in the New Testament. When it was written, the "letter of the law" represented a particular manifestation of the spirit of the law, but even in its original setting a simplistic interpretation and application of the letter of the law was not generally a good thing. That is, even in its original context, following the letter of the law sometimes violated the spirit of the law. This is one reason the Bible provides so many examples of how to apply particular laws in specific circumstances.

http://old.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99819.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim

Rose
06-08-2014, 08:20 AM
Sacrifice is not done to appease someone. If you sacrifice your life say for your children, who are you appeasing? It is out of love, out of kindness, out of good principle that you sacrifice your life for your children so that they may live. No the animal was killed as a reminder of sacrifice for sin and a reminder of death if you sinned. And when you aet that sacrificial animal is a symbolic contract that you agree not to sin.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? We are not talking about people sacrificing themselves for each other, we are talking about the biblical laws of sacrificing animals for sinful behavior! The Biblegod required bloody animal sacrifices in order to cleanse people of their sins. Sacrificing animals and people is a primitive and barbaric idea that was practice by many ancient cultures, the Hebrews being one of those cultures.



Nocturnal emission is not an unlawful act but is a hygienic issue. The key word here is uncleanliness" by reason of uncleanliness"; and it stated that the man has to be outside under the sun for several hours until evening so that ultraviolet rays and dry fresh air will destroy the germs.


Or that a woman's menstrual cycle is an unlawful act?? In the verse below it clearly says that a sin offering needs to be made for the issue of a woman's uncleanness.
Lev.15:29-30 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.


Menstrual cycle is not an unlawful act but is of hygienic issue . The key word is uncleanliness "for the issue of her uncleanliness". The sin offering is to remind of Eve being beguiled by the Serpent which is why it was to be done on the eighth day symbolic of the day of a new beginning.

You are the one who introduced the idea of unlawfulness. Leviticus states that for issues of uncleanness a sin offering is required. The natural process of menstruation was considered unclean and therefore a sin offering was required ... that is a very primitive and barbaric idea. Menstruation is NOT by its nature unclean anymore than the blood flowing from a wound is unclean. It is only when people do not practice proper hygiene that bodily fluids become unclean.


FRESH feces from a HEALTHY person does not contain a lot of harmful bacteria. Mosyt of the bacteria are of the good or less harmful type. A good example are fresh urine from a healthy person which does'nt smell bad because there is very little or no germs but if left for sometime outside, the bacteria from outside grows and the urine will starts to smell. Fresh urine from an unhealthy person such as a person suffering from urinary tract infection smells bad because the urine already contains lots of bacteria. there are incidences whereby people drank their own urine to quench their thirst for survival and they didn't get sick. Do you know that fresh feces from healthy people has been used to cure people from chronic diarrhea because the good bacteria in the fresh transplanted feces propagate in the gut neutralizing and replacing the bad bacteria causing the diarrhea?

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20140424/frozen-as-good-as-fresh-for-fecal-transplants-for-diarrhea-study

God Bless.:pray:

The point is that feces IS a waste product and DOES contain harmful bacteria, therefore is considered to be unclean, yet in the Bible it is treated in a different manner than other bodily functions like menstrual fluids, which is not a waste product, yet it requires a sin offering.

Rose
06-08-2014, 09:51 AM
I was speaking with Michael today about the OT laws. He said that the Law should be taken not just on a literal level - but it's interpretation should also be in the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is deeper, and reflects the character and overall context of the law.

He said that Jesus summed up the spirit of the law when he said "Love others as you love yourself"

Interpretation of any other law must always be in this spirit.

If the underlying spirit of the OT law can be summed up as Do unto others as you would do unto yourself, then perhaps passages that appear bad are simply being interpreted in the wrong spirit.

He said that the Law, in a way, is similar to the Temple, in having an outer public area , an inner court and a holy of holies. Similarly, the Law has a literal and public aspect, and a deeper spiritual aspect that reflects the spirit behind it.

Jesus often criticised the Pharisees about their literal interpretation of the laws about working on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were missing the spirit of the law, which was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The spirit of the OT law is probably the spirit of Love, compassion, self-control etc , ie the Holy Spirit. Interpreting law whilst ignoring the Holy Spirit underlying it, may lead to misinterpretations.

Hi Craig,

The huge problem I see with Michael's idea that interpretation should always be in the spirit of the law, is that the Old Testament laws were carried out literally by the Hebrews, who supposedly received the law from god! People kept slaves because the law said they could, men denied women equal rights and owned them like property because the law said they could, and on and on it goes ...

How can you take a law that is obviously immoral and unjust to begin with, and somehow interpret its "spirit" as being loving and compassionate?? If a law is suppose to be moral and just it should have been literally given that way, not in some obscure fashion that leaves room for people to interpret it in a biased and immoral manner.

When Jesus summed up the law as "Loving others as you love yourself", he never bothered to condemn the immoral flaws found in many of the Old Testament laws that he said not one "jot" or "tittle" would change from ... that makes him guilty of endorsing and condoning those laws. There is no love or compassion in condoning immoral and biased laws that have caused untold suffering throughout the ages!!

Saying that laws should be interpreted in the spirit, is just another method of trying to justify the horrendous, immoral behavior of the Biblegod. It makes so much more sense, and requires no justification at all when one sees the true reason for all those horrible, unjust laws contained in the Bible. It is very simple when you realize that humans can act in immoral and unjust ways to gain power and dominance, so when you consider that the Bible was written by men, it becomes easy to understand why it contains so much immorality and unfairness. Humans do horrendous things for immoral reasons! :eek:

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-08-2014, 02:29 PM
I agree with you Rose that the OT laws treat women as inferior. The Bible claims that these laws were all given directly by God.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-08-2014, 04:20 PM
Hi Rose,

Before throwing out Christianity altogether, I would like to atleast explore this possibility - the spirit of the law idea. The most noteworthy passages that you have highlighted concern -

1. Genocide
2. Slavery
3. Treatment of women

The genocide was mainly directed towards the Canaanites, perhaps because they were descended from the Nephilim as the Bible states.

Hey there Craig,

I think your willingness to discuss the evidence is very admirable. But there are a few problems with your suggestion. First, how could there be any Nephilim after the flood? The only people who survived were Noah, his sons, and their wives. So I don't see how the "nephilim" of Numbers 13:33 could be referring to human/angelic hybrids, which is a highly contested doctrine anyway.

Second, if the reason for the genocide was to destroy the Nephalim, why would God allow 32,000 of the women saved from the genocide of the Midianites be taken as wives?

Third, if the purpose of the genocide was to destroy human/angelic hybrids, why didn't God say so? As it stands, we have no indication that the people killed were anything but human. Remember, the Midianites were relatives of Moses!



Slavery was for a maximum of 7 years after which slaves were to be set free in the Sabbath Year - not such a long term.

Not true. That limitation applied only to Hebrew slaves. Slaves purchased or captured from other nations could be kept in perpetuity. They, and their children and grandchildren could handed down as a "perpetual inheritance."

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Note that God makes a distinction about how the Hebrew slaves should get special treatment as compared to foreign slaves which could be ruled over with "rigour" which is the same word used in the description of how the Egyptians treated the Hebrew slaves.

It is fascinating that Christian apologist Rich Deem carefully avoided this verse in his article called "Does God Approve of Slavery in the Bible? (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html). He followed the standard techniques of rhetorical deception by writing many words and quoting a massive number of verses that suited his purpose such as Leviticus 25:39-43 which speaks of treating Hebrew slaves well, but then he deliberately stopped short of verses 44-46 which speak of perpetual slavery! This is the most blatant form of deception possible. He ends his article with the assertion that the “idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false.” He is a poster child how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. I show many other examples of how his attempt to justify falsehood literally disintegrated his mind and morals in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/).



Treatment of Women
And the new Testament says that men should treat women with Love. And guided by the Spirit, they should treat women with equality. The New Testament might not actually state this equality in words - but the Spirit of the Law does point to equality - Love others as you love yourself. That's why Christian cultures gave birth eventually to democracy and equality - because of the spirit of the law.

Not all that Paul wrote was in the spirit of the law - he said some things that jar with the spirit - such as women having to cover themselves and not teach and be subservient. It is obvious that if you love others as you love yourself then such inequality is wrong. So, following the spirit of the law, we know better.

Guided by the spirit, our culture has advanced much further than New Testament culture.

However, in the Old Testament there are dozens of laws that treat women as inferior and as property. It is like a Taliban culture. Inequality is explicit. Such inequality is in conflict with the golden rule. I think that the 10 commandments were written in the spirit, but later Moses acted as Judge and filled out the details of the Law with all these 613 rules that were simply like the surrounding cultures.

I would agree with you Rose, that OT laws about women are bad. I think Moses was trying to fill out the details of the law. But the stuff that was given to him on Mt Sinai was the 10 commandments - and that was given by the Spirit.

So, in short, unless we want to support a Taliban culture, I do not think that God gave the 613 laws - Moses did.

Isaiah said the same in the OT - that it is better to be compassionate than to offer sacrifices. The spirit is better than the ritual rule following, letter following.

The letter of the law in the New Testament requires the Spirit of the Law also, not just the letter of the law in the OT.
It's great to see you speak honestly about what you see in the Bible. That's a rare thing for a believer.

But I don't see how your solution could really work. It seems like you are picking and choosing which parts are from God (the parts that are not immoral) and which are not. But if that's the case, then the Bible ceases to be a guide since we must use our own moral and intellectual understanding to determine what to do.

Great chatting,

Richard

Rose
06-08-2014, 04:39 PM
Hi Rose,

Before throwing out Christianity altogether, I would like to at least explore this possibility - the spirit of the law idea. The most noteworthy passages that you have highlighted concern -

1. Genocide
2. Slavery
3. Treatment of women

The genocide was mainly directed towards the Canaanites, perhaps because they were descended from the Nephilim as the Bible states.

The death of the Egyptian firstborn is paralleled by the death of Christ - the FirstBorn.
At Pentecost God gave the Law to Moses and 3000 died by the sword, then 40 years later they entered the promised Land. At Pentecost the Spirit was poured out and 3000 gained new life, then 40 years later they left the Promised Land. What God takes away, he can raise up - and vica versa.

Hello Craig,

I would love to discuss these issues with you. :thumb:

Genocide is still genocide, even if it is only directed at one group of people and for a particular reason. The sad thing is that starting from the Flood, the Biblegod uses genocide as a means of eradicating people ... sometimes it's for taking land and houses and other times it's because men need wives. The whole flavor of the Old Testament is that life is cheap, and the Biblegod seems to think nothing of slaughtering whole communities of men, women and children at every turn of the page.

The spirit of the law in the Old Testament, and in Revelation seems to be the shedding of blood, and the taking of life is the solution to every problem. You say, what god takes away, he can raise up, but that is not true ... no life can be replaced. The story of Job is a good example of that kind of erroneous thinking. How could the children that were killed and taken from Job possibly be replaced? They can't! Even though the story implies that they can be replaced.


Slavery was for a maximum of 7 years after which slaves were to be set free in the Sabbath Year - not such a long term.

First off, the 7 year term was only applicable to Hebrew slaves not foreigners, as is stated in the passages below. Secondly, it clearly states in that the heathen that are bought as slaves are the possession of the purchaser and can be passed down as an inheritance forever!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Slavery is wrong ... period, it doesn't matter how long a person is enslaved.




Treatment of Women
And the new Testament says that men should treat women with Love. And guided by the Spirit, they should treat women with equality. The New Testament might not actually state this equality in words - but the Spirit of the Law does point to equality - Love others as you love yourself. That's why Christian cultures gave birth eventually to democracy and equality - because of the spirit of the law.

Not all that Paul wrote was in the spirit of the law - he said some things that jar with the spirit - such as women having to cover themselves and not teach and be subservient. It is obvious that if you love others as you love yourself then such inequality is wrong. So, following the spirit of the law, we know better.

Guided by the spirit, our culture has advanced much further than New Testament culture.

However, in the Old Testament there are dozens of laws that treat women as inferior and as property. It is like a Taliban culture. Inequality is explicit. Such inequality is in conflict with the golden rule. I think that the 10 commandments were written in the spirit, but later Moses acted as Judge and filled out the details of the Law with all these 613 rules that were simply like the surrounding cultures.

I would agree with you Rose, that OT laws about women are bad. I think Moses was trying to fill out the details of the law. But the stuff that was given to him on Mt Sinai was the 10 commandments - and that was given by the Spirit.

I really wouldn't give any credit to the "Spirit" for the advancement of human rights (especially women's rights). The biblical mindset promotes male dominance, and rulership, which does nothing to advance the idea of cooperation and egalitarianism.



So, in short, unless we want to support a Taliban culture, I do not think that God gave the 613 laws - Moses did.

Isaiah said the same in the OT - that it is better to be compassionate than to offer sacrifices. The spirit is better than the ritual rule following, letter following.

The letter of the law in the New Testament requires the Spirit of the Law also, not just the letter of the law in the OT.

I also believe that the 613 laws were man-made, but that doesn't explain why Jesus upheld them and said they were given by god and would not pass away until all were fulfilled? There are far too many problems with the Bible, to be able to brush them aside and posit the "Spirit of the Law" in their place.

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-09-2014, 12:43 AM
So summing up so far, the Bible definitely does the following -

1. Supports the inferior status of women.

2. Supports the existence of a slave trade where foreign slaves can be bought and then kept in perpetual slavery.

3. Allows you to beat a slave severely, as long as you don't maim him or her.

4. If Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 7 years, then why not foreign slaves? This seems unfair since both are equally human, and have the same needs.

These rules are not regarded as good according our current standards, making it difficult for our modern society to judge the author of the Bible as completely good, perfect, eternal and unchanging

It seems quite sad and ironic that despite all the effort I have made to find evidence that God exists, He is undone by the words of His own mouth. In a sense He condemns Himself.....implodes.

CWH
06-09-2014, 03:19 AM
So summing up so far, the Bible definitely does the following -

1. Supports the inferior status of women.

2. Supports the existence of a slave trade where foreign slaves can be bought and then kept in perpetual slavery.

3. Allows you to beat a slave severely, as long as you don't maim him or her.

4. If Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 7 years, then why not foreign slaves? This seems unfair since both are equally human, and have the same needs.

These rules are not regarded as good according our current standards, making it difficult for our modern society to judge the author of the Bible as completely good.
Hi Craig, don't sum up so fast.

1. The Bible support the inferior status of women so that men needs to protect them. Men has the responsibilty to protect the women folks throughout the ages even till today as men are the ones who fight against people, enemies, animals who attack women in order to protect them. Men hunt food in ancient days to provide for the women folks. That is why soldiers and hunters are mainly men.

2. Supports the existence of a slave trade where foreign slaves can be bought and then kept in perpetual slavery. Slavery occurs in all ancient societies; it is a sort of life long occupation. Many slaves were like POW and thus were treated more harshly but better than POWs. Some slaves would not even want to leave their good masters who have treated them well and whom they have served for years even given the choice as they would not be able to survive in the harsh realities of the outside world where they would have to fend for themselves. Being kept in perpertuity usually was their own personal choice, would ensure their survivability like life-long employability.

3. Allows you to beat a slave severely, as long as you don't maim him or her.
Because those slaves were POWs, their former enemies and thus they were punished as justice for killing the Israelites soldiers and civilians but they were not allowed to maim them. However, some were considered well treated and care for under the Israelites compared to if they were under other evil tribes. Same as what current POWs were treated; no one will treat POWs as well as their citizens, if not why become POWs; this is specified in the Geneva Convention.

4. If Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 7 years, then why not foreign slaves? This seems unfair since both are equally human, and have the same needs. This is because the foreigner slaves will not be able to survive on thier own and being foreigners they will not be well treated and accepted by the locals. Same as in certain countries, locals do not like foreigners and immigrants who will take over their jobs, lands etc. Isn't that exactly what happened to the Negro slaves after the antislavery law in the US?

God Bless. :pray:

CWH
06-09-2014, 04:51 AM
How many times do I have to repeat myself? We are not talking about people sacrificing themselves for each other, we are talking about the biblical laws of sacrificing animals for sinful behavior! The Biblegod required bloody animal sacrifices in order to cleanse people of their sins. Sacrificing animals and people is a primitive and barbaric idea that was practice by many ancient cultures, the Hebrews being one of those cultures.
And how many times must I tell you that bodily discharges are not sinful and that the sin offering is done to remind people not to sin as in the case of Eve. The Bible God srequire bloody sacrifice, He desire righteousness, mercy over sacrifices as I have already cited several verses on these....unless you are blind. The bloody sacrifce is to remind them that they will likewise perished if they sinned; this is one of the meaning of the life is in the blood. Everybody knows that blood does not cleanse sin. The Hebrew Never sacrifice humans but animals. Don't we also asacrifice animals for food and to celebrate festivities? How barbaric are we?


You are the one who introduced the idea of unlawfulness. Leviticus states that for issues of uncleanness a sin offering is required. The natural process of menstruation was considered unclean and therefore a sin offering was required ... that is a very primitive and barbaric idea. Menstruation is NOT by its nature unclean anymore than the blood flowing from a wound is unclean. It is only when people do not practice proper hygiene that bodily fluids become unclean.
I have already explain to you uncleanliness is not sin unless the uncleaniliness leads to infecting self and others knowingly or unknowingly. Supposed you infect others by your uncleanliness, don't you think you should offer compensation or at least an apology? Menses if left unwashed harbor germs and it takes time for the blood loss to be replaced, that's why the women needed to rest for several days.


The point is that feces IS a waste product and DOES contain harmful bacteria, therefore is considered to be unclean, yet in the Bible it is treated in a different manner than other bodily functions like menstrual fluids, which is not a waste product, yet it requires a sin offering.
The point I am stressing, that fresh shit does not contain many harmful germs but many good germs which is why they are used in treating chronic diarrhea. But shit if left unclean harbors germs. There is no sin offering for feces but only for menses,...why?.... because as a reminder not to sin like Eve. Same as Americans celebrate the 4th of July in order to remember the struggle for the day of independence.

God Bless. :pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-09-2014, 05:27 AM
Hi CWH

here is an article I found on Slaves in the Bible -

A closer look at the slave laws shows that runaway slaves were to be given safe refuge and allowed to settle where ever they chose. See Deuteronomy 23 v 13 . So if they did not like their masters treatment, they could always leave. In this way, slavery was similar to being employed in a company today for life.

Given that slaves had this freedom, then conditions must have been reasonable enough for them to want to stay. All slaves had one day of leisure each week , and certain holidays each year so they could participate in Festivals with their master's family. They also were not required to work during the sabbatical years and years of Jubilee..

Whilst corporal punishment was allowed, permanent injury was illegal, and killing a slave was to be compensated life for life.

In addition to all this, the guiding spirit of the law - to do unto others as you would have them do unto you - applied. See Leviticus 19 v 33, 34, Deut 10 v 19

Finally, laws required that Israelite slaves be freed in the 7th year - the year of Jubilee.

In fact the whole of Israel's history is framed around this Sabbath cycle, the cycle of forgiveness and mercy - every 430 years or 70 Sabbath years God would draw near and we could find rest - and He would make a covenant with us.

So, once more you are correct CWH.




Chattel Slavery

Chattel slaves had no kinship rights, no marriage rights, no personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract, no freedom of movement, and no access to liberty. Because the individual was property in the truest sense, the master was not accountable in any way for his treatment of the individual. He was no more accountable for beating or killing his slave than he was for breaking his own chair. The individual could be bought or sold at the discretion of the master. Chattel slavery was always involuntary, coercive, and terminal (the individual was a slave until death, with no means of obtaining liberty).

Israel did not make chattel slaves of defeated nations, and the Law of Moses made no provision for any kind of mass service aside from vassalage. Plantation style slavery was impossible for the Israelite in any case, as family groups did not have the capacity to house, secure, and provide for large groups of chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were expensive because they had no capacity to sustain themselves, and had to be fed and clothed at the expense of their master.

Even Abraham’s servants, before the Law of Moses, were certainly not chattel slaves, despite being born in his own house, else he could not have afforded to keep them and certainly could never have risked arming them and using them for war (Genesis 14:14-15). Large scale chattel slavery was totally impossible for the nomad. Abraham’s servants, though born in his house, were not chattel slaves. One of them (Eliezer), was not only master of his household (Genesis 24:2), but was also his heir (Genesis 15:3). This is not the position of a chattel slave.

Chattel slavery did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no form of servitude under the Law of Moses which placed them in the legal position of chattel slaves. Legislation maintained kinship rights (Exodus 21:3, 9, Leviticus 25:41, 47-49, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), marriage rights (Exodus 21:4, 10-11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage), personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract (Exodus 21:8, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind, and Leviticus 25:39-41, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Exodus 21:8, 11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Leviticus 25:40-45, 48, 54, providing for Hebrew intendured servants, and Deuteronomy 15:1, 12; 23:15, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind).

Though several forms of servitude existed under the Law of Moses, in every case all rights were maintained unless voluntarily relinquished (Exodus 21:5-6, Deuteronomy 15:16-17).

The Law of Moses commanded that servants, of whatever origin (Gentile or Hebrew), were to be treated as human beings who were part of the family and community. Unlike any other ANE society, the Law of Moses commanded that servants enjoy at least one day a week free from every kind of labour, participating in the Sabbath day of rest together with the free members of the community:


Exodus 20:
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates.

Deuteronomy 5:
14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. On that day you must not do any work, you, your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, your ox, your donkey, any other animal, or the foreigner who lives with you, so that your male and female slaves, like yourself, may have rest.

The commandment in Deuteronomy 5:14 specifies that one reason for this injunction is that male and female servants may enjoy the same privilege of leisure as their free masters. This commandment was unique to the Law of Moses. No other ANE society provided its slaves, servants, or even hired workers, with a legally protected day of rest every 6 days.

In addition, the Law of Moses required that servants be incorporated into the community festive activities. One was the thanksgiving feast in memorial of God’s deliverance:


Deuteronomy 12:
12 You shall rejoice in the presence of the Lord your God, along with your sons, daughters, male and female servants, and the Levites in your villages (since they have no allotment or inheritance with you).

Another was the grain harvest festival:


Deuteronomy 16:
10 Then you are to celebrate the Festival of Weeks before the Lord your God with the voluntary offering that you will bring, in proportion to how he has blessed you.
11 You shall rejoice before him – you, your son, your daughter, your male and female slaves, the Levites in your villages, the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows among you – in the place where the Lord chooses to locate his name.
12 Furthermore, remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and so be careful to observe these statutes.

It is worth noting that the text specifically reminds the Hebrews to observe the commandment to include their servants in this festival, on the basis that they were once slaves in Egypt, and should therefore take care of those less fortunate than themselves.

The Festival of Temporary Shelters (celebrated at the grain and grape harvest), was another community feast in which servants were commanded to be included:


Deuteronomy 16:
13 You must celebrate the Festival of Temporary Shelters for seven days, at the time of the grain and grape harvest.
14 You are to rejoice in your festival, you, your son, your daughter, your male and female slaves, the Levites, the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows who are in your villages.

The inclusion in these feasts of servants and socially disadvantaged groups such as the resident foreigners, orphans, and widows demonstrates that these individuals were not to be marginalised by the community, but included with the free community, and provided with the same benefits as equal citizens. This explicit emphasis on the humanity of servants encouraged strong personal and emotional bonds between servants and the households they served, and prevented them from being viewed as mere chattels or being dehumanized, as they frequently were in other ANE socities.

Priests under the Law of Moses had no income other than that which they received from the community tithe (a tax of ten percent of the community’s produce), and from certain of the offerings made under the sacrificial code. Ordinarily, the food of the offerings was permitted to be eaten only by the priests. Since it had been ritually sanctified, it could not be eaten by a non-priest. A priest could not offer it to his guest, his lodger, or his hired worker:


Leviticus 22:
10 “‘No lay person may eat anything holy. Neither a priest’s lodger nor a hired laborer may eat anything holy,

However, both an indentured servant owned by the priest, or a servant who was born in his own house, were permitted to eat of the food which was ordinarily reserved only for the priest:


Leviticus 22:
11 but if a priest buys a person with his own money, that person may eat the holy offerings, and those born in the priest’s own house may eat his food.

This remarkable law provided uniquely for the servant of the priest, treating their welfare as equally important as that of the priest himself. The servant had the right to share the ritually sanctified food which was otherwise reserved only for the priest, who belonged to the most privileged class in the community.

Masters were accountable to the law for their treatment of all their servants, whether fellow Hebrews or foreigners (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27), and the death of a servant caused by a domestic animal had to be compensated (Exodus 21:32), though the death of a freeman caused by a domestic animal did not have to be compensated unless the animal was previously known to be dangerous (Exodus 21:28-29). These laws were far superior to the laws of other ANE societies, most of which permitted chattel slavery, and provided little or no protection for servants of any kind.

For example, the Law of Moses placed an equal value on the life of the slave as on the life of a free born man, which the Code of Hammurabi did not do:

* The Code of Hammurabi exacted no penalty for the murder of a slave, but the Law of Moses proscribed the death penalty for the murder of any man (Exodus 21:12)

* The Code of Hammurabi exacted no penalty for injuring a slave, but the Law of Moses required a master to set his slave free if he inflicted permanent injury (Exodus 21:26-27)

* The Code of Hammurabi held the life of a slave to be of less value than the life of a free born man, but the Law of Moses valued them equally (Exodus 21:12, 19)

No servant under the Law of Moses, of whatever status (Hebrew or foreigner), was subjected to the terms of ANE or New World chattel slavery:


‘A [chattel] slave was property. The slaveowner’s rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of [chattel] slavery.’

Peter Garnsey, ‘Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine’, 1996, page 1, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


‘Guterbock refers to ‘slaves in the strict sense,’ apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning ‘servant‘ seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation ‘semi-free’. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active. [sic]‘

‘A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law’, Raymond Westbrook (editor), 2003, volume 1, page 632, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Several laws in the Law of Moses which applied to servitude are unique, having no counterpart in any other ANE society:

* Servants were protected from injury by their masters, and were set free if they were injured

* Murdering a slave incurred the death penalty

* It was illegal to capture individuals and place them in coercive servitude as property (chattel slavery)

* Any servant who ran away from their master automatically gained their liberty and were free to live wherever they chose; not only was it illegal to return them to their master, it was also forbidden to oppress them in any way

Under the Law of Moses, the master who struck his servant and knocked out an eye or tooth, had to let the servant go free (Exodus 21:26-27), a law understood by the Jews as referring to any permanent injury. In contrast, under the Code of Hammurabi a man who struck an even ex-slave and knocked out their eye or tooth had only to pay a monetary fine, and there was no penalty for injuring a slave at all. Other ANE law codes also failed to provide any such protection for servants and slaves:


‘The above prescription is hugely instructive, in comparison to the ANE: In some ANE codes, a master could literally put out the eyes of his slaves![HI:HANEL, e.g., at Mari, 1:383; at Nuzi, 1:586]. This represents a MASSIVE departure from ‘conventional morality’ of the day!’

‘The ANE, however, did NOT have the same ‘respect’ for the face of slaves–besides eye-gouging, they resorted to branding, cutting of the ears, mutilating the nose, etc– IN THE LAW CODES!. These practices are NOT in Israel’s law codes, and they are implied to be prohibited by the focus on penalties for striking the face.’

Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


‘This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Exodus 21:21-27, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


‘Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love (‘aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen.’

‘Marriage and Family in the Biblical World’, 2003, Ken Campbell (editor), page 60, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Under the Law of Moses, murdering a slave incurred the death penalty:


Exodus 21:
20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.

The term for ‘punished’ here is ‘avenged’, indicating the standard ‘lex talionis’, the law of equivalent retribution (Deuteronomy 19:21, ‘principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot’). The earliest Jewish commentaries on the passage makes this clear:


‘And when a man hath smitten his Kenaanite man‑servant or maid‑servant with a staff, and he die the same day under his hand, he shall be judged with the judgment of death by the sword.’

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Mishpatim, commentary on Exodus 21:20, 1st century AD

‘And when a man smiteth his servant or his handmaid with a staff, and he die under his hand, condemned he shall be condemned.’

Targum Onkelos, Mishpatim, commentary on Exodus 21:20, 2nd century AD

Modern commentaries agree:


‘He must be avenged The master is criminally liable and faces execution, in keeping with the law of verse…The verb n-k-m is popularly taken to signify “revenge.” Actually, it means “to avenge,” that is, to vindicate, or redress, the imbalance of justice. Its use in the Bible is overwhelmingly with God as the subject, and in such cases it always serves the ends of justice. It is employed in particular in situations in which normal judicial procedures are not effective or cannot be implemented.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Exodus 21:20, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


“The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for “a day or two” (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased.

When this law is considered alongside the law in vv. 26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, viz., his pocketbook, a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment (vv. 18-19). The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master’s mercy but to restrict the master’s power over him (cf. similar laws in the Code of Hammurabi 196-97, 200).’

‘Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament’, 1992, note on Exodus 21:20, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Under the Law of Hammurabi, the death penalty was not enforced on a master murdering his own slave. The only penalty enforced for the death of a slave was if the slave died as a result of mistreatment in prison, in which case a fine was imposed:


116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

Under the Law of Moses, it was illegal to capture individuals and place them in coercive servitude as property (chattel slavery). The punishment for such a crime was death:


Exodus 21:
16 “Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 24:
7 If a man is found kidnapping a person from among his fellow Israelites, and regards him as mere property and sells him, that kidnapper must die. In this way you will purge evil from among you.

In contrast, the Law of Hammurabi only punished the kidnap of a minor son of a freeman, and offered no protection for anyone captured and placed in coercive slavery:


14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

Under the Law of Moses, any servant who ran away from their master automatically gained their liberty and were free to live wherever they chose. Not only was it illegal to return them to their master, it was also forbidden to oppress them in any way:


Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.

The Hebrew word here translated slave is ‘ebed’, and refers generally to any servant, no matter what form of servitude they were under, and regardless of their nationality. This is arguably the most remarkable law regarding servants in the entire Law of Moses. No other ANE society had any such law, and most contemporary societies actually punished those who protected or supported runaway slaves. The Law of Hammurabi was particularly vindictive regarding this matter, enforcing the death penalty on anyone who sheltered a runaway slave, or who even concealed knowledge of their whereabouts:


16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

Other ANE law codes were equally cruel, and the Law of Moses stands out as uniquely humanitarian:


‘Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Deuteronomy 23:15-16, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


‘A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel’s own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.’

‘A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law’, Raymond Westbrook (editor), 2003, volume 2, page 1006, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Indentured Servitude

Indentured servitude did exist under the Law of Moses, and both fellow Hebrews and foreigners could be contracted as indentured servants. They sold themselves into the ownership of a master to whom they owed money (or a master who paid off the debts they owed to another person), and payed off their debt with service. Indentured servants under the Law of Moses held kinship rights, marriage rights, personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract, freedom of movement, and access to liberty by paying their debt (either through service, or with money).

Unlike the other ANE societies, the Law of Moses did not permit family members to sell each other into indentured service to recover family debts. The head of the household sold himself into indentured service, and whilst his family certainly joined him as members of the master’s household, they were not the property of the master as the man himself was, and nor were they contracted to serve.

The Law of Moses went to great lengths to reduce the necessity of indentured service for the payment of debt, providing various means by which an impoverished man could profit from the sale of his property or land, without losing it permanently. Hebrews were not to charge interest when loaning money to other Hebrews (Deuteronomy 23:19), which reduced the possibility of large debts accruing. In other ANE cultures there was no limit on interest rates, which often resulted in unpayable debts:


‘Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest. (Elsewhere in the ancient Near East exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery).’

Article ‘Slavery’, in ‘Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch’, 2003, T Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (editors), as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Every fifty years, in the Jubilee year, the property or land which a man had sold to relieve himself from debt, returned to his possession without penalty (Leviticus 25:8-10, 13-14). An impoverished man could sell his land to a fellow Hebrew for a sum equal to the value of the produce it would generate in the years left until the next Jubilee (Leviticus 25:15-16), and the land would return to him in the Jubilee year.

Even before the Jubilee year, a man’s property or land was to be repurchased for him by a kinsman (Leviticus 25:25), or could even be repurchased by the man himself if he obtained sufficient funds to do so (Leviticus 25:26-27). This repurchase was considered a compulsory acquisition which the new owner of the land was not permitted to refuse (Leviticus 25:23-24). In any case, the land would return to the man in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:13).

The exception was a residential house in a walled city, which could be redeemed within a year but no later, and did not return to the original owner in the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:29-30). Residential houses outside the urban area, however, were protected by both the permanent availabilty of redemption and the compulsory return in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:31), which clearly favoured the less wealthy rural dwellers over the more wealthy and financially secure urban dwellers.

In the event that a Hebrew became so impoverished that he had sold his property or land, his fellow Hebrew were forbidden to take advantage of his position. They were to provide care and support for him even if he was in debt to them, and money was to be loaned to him without interest:


Leviticus 25:
35 “‘If your brother becomes impoverished and is indebted to you, you must support him; he must live with you like a foreign resident.
36 Do not take interest or profit from him, but you must fear your God and your brother must live with you.
37 You must not lend him your money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit.

This protected the Hebrew debtor from being sold into slavery or indentured service against his will, an act which his debtor had no right to do. The only way for the Hebrew debtor to enter indentured service to pay his debts was by his own choice. Even when this occurred his fellow Hebrews were to treat him as an employee, and were forbidden to treat him as a chattel slave (‘you must not subject him to slave service’, verse 39, a term different from that used of the hired employee or the indentured servant). Both he and his family would be released in the Jubilee year:


Leviticus 25:
39 “‘If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.
40 He must be with you as a hired worker, as a resident foreigner; he must serve with you until the year of jubilee,
41 but then he may go free, he and his children with him, and may return to his family and to the property of his ancestors.
42 Since they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt, they must not be sold in a slave sale.
43 You must not rule over him harshly, but you must fear your God.

Importantly, the Hebrew who purchased his fellow Hebrew as an indentured servant was not permitted to sell him to another person to recover their debt (‘they must not be sold in a slave sale’, verse 42), and had to remain in the custody of the Hebrew who had purchased them. This ensured that the man remained within the Hebrew community, which provided him with legal protection from abuse, and prevented him from being sold to a foreign nation. All Hebrew indentured servants were explicitly protected by law from harsh treatment at the hands of their masters (‘You must not rule over him harshly’, Leviticus 25:43, ‘no man may rule over his brother harshly’, Leviticus 25:46, ‘The one who bought him must not rule over him harshly in your sight’, Leviticus 25:53).

This was in direct contrast to the Law of Hammurabi, which permitted a master to give away his servants for forced labour or lease them out to another master, who could sublease them or even sell them:


118. If he give a male or female slave away for forced labor, and the merchant sublease them, or sell them for money, no objection can be raised.

In the event that a Hebrew man sold himself to a resident foreigner, he could be repurchased from the foreigner by a kinsman at a price calculated on his value as a hired employee, and recompensate his kinsman either through monetary payment or service, during which time he was to be treated as a hired employee and not taken advantage of by his kinsman (Leviticus 25:47-53).

If he was unable to be redeemed from the resident foreigner, he would nevertheless be released with his family in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:54-55). Of course, there would be many cases in which the Jubilee year was still very far off, and it would seem pointless for a 30 year old man to sell himself into service (even as a hired employee), hoping for relase in another 40 years time, since he would be unlikely to live that long. But the Law of Moses not only provided the Jubilee as a year of debt cancellation. All financial debts were automatically cancelled every seven years:


Deuteronomy 15:
1 At the end of every seven years you must declare a cancellation of debts.
2 This is the nature of the cancellation: Every creditor must remit what he has loaned to another person; he must not force payment from his fellow Israelite, for it is to be recognized as “the Lord’s cancellation of debts.”

This legislation ensured that the impoverished Israelite would never have more than seven years to wait before his debts were cancelled, whether or not he could pay them. Given this extremely generous provision in the Law, it was natural that creditors would be reluctant to lend money to their less wealthy fellow Hebrews, knowing that the closer the seventh year was the less chance there was of them being repaid.

However, the Law explicitly required the wealthy to lend to those in need, regardless of the close proximity of the year of debt cancellation:


Deuteronomy 15:
7 If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart or be insensitive to his impoverished condition.
8 Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs.
9 Be careful lest you entertain the wicked thought that the seventh year, the year of cancellation of debts, has almost arrived, and your attitude be wrong toward your impoverished fellow Israelite and you do not lend him anything; he will cry out to the Lord against you and you will be regarded as having sinned.
10 You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt.

The Law of Hammurabi required debt cancellation after only three years instead of six, but the terms were not as favourable:


117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.

Firstly, the Law of Hammurabi lacked the many safeguards included in the Law of Moses to prevent the debtor having to resort to indentured service in the first place. Secondly, the Law of Hammurabi did not require its citizens to provide and care for those who were in debt without insisting they become indentured servants, as the Law of Moses did (Leviticus 25:35-37).

Thirdly, debtor was compelled by law to enter indentured service if he could not pay his debt, which was not required by the Law of Moses. Fourthly, a man could sell his family members as indentured servants whilst he remained free, whislt the Law of Moses expected the man who was the head of the household to sell himself into indentured service, and whilst his family certainly joined him as members of the master’s household, they were not the property of the master as the man himself was.

Fifthly, the Law of Hammurabi permitted a man to give his family members away to forced labour in exchange for debt cancellation, which was not permitted under the Law of Moses, and subjected the family members to the conditions of chattel slaves without the legal protections enjoyed by the Hebrew indentured servant. But of course, the Law of Hammurabi had no such laws providing for the protection of the indentured servant as the Law of Moses had.

Not only did the Law of Moses protect the Hebrew indentured servant from exploitation and permanent debt, when the servant was releaed in the year of debt cancellation the master was required to present them with a substantial gift of property from his own belongings, in order to help him recover from his poverty:


Deuteronomy 15:
13 If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed.
14 You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress – as the Lord your God has blessed you, you must give to them.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore, I am commanding you to do this thing today.

At the end of the seven years, therefore, the indentured servant not only had his debt cancelled (no matter how large it had been), but he actually made a substantial profit from his service. No other ANE law code required such extraordinary generosity from those who purchased an indentured servant.

One other way for a Hebrew to become an indentured servant to another Hebrew was through theft. If a thief could not repay what he had stolen, he was subjected to indentured service unti lhe had paid for the property he had stolen (‘A thief must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft’, Exodus 22:3). Yet both the seventh year of release and the Jubilee year applied even to the thief, so that he could not become responsible for a debt he could never repay.

The laws for servants who were non-Hebrews were slightly different. For them there was no automatic release, either in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:44-46), or the seventh year of debt cancellation (Deuteronomy 15:3). These foreign indentured servants were outside the covenant community, and did not receive the benefit of debt cancellation. The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of ‘olam’ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated ‘perpetually’). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled).

However, the Law of Moses still maintained their personal legal rights relating to physical protection (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Any bondservant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:


Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.

Thus even for bondservants purchased from the Gentiles, servititude was not a permanent institution.

Importantly, the Law of Moses made no provision for any slave trade. It was permissible to purchase men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, but not to sell them (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39, 42, 45, Deuteronomy 15:12). Taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).

It is a simple fact that obedience to two of the commandments regulating servititude within the Law of Moses would have prevented every form of slave trade in which Western civilization became involved. The South American, East and West Indian, and African slave trades would have been totally prevented if Western societies had passed laws expressly forbidding involuntary slavery and sale on the one hand (such as Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), and granting an escaped slave their full liberty and freedom of movement whilst forbidding the community to return them to their master or take advantage of their marginalized position (such as Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Although many Christians campaigned against slavery for centuries, laws in Western society unfortunately did not become as civilized as the Law of Moses in this regard until around the 19th century.


Bride sale

Strictly speaking this was not a form of servitude, since when a daughter was ‘sold’, the ‘sale’ actually constituted a marriage contract intended to place the daughter in a position of financial security and a superior socio-economic position:


‘Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride’s family too usually presented gifts to the groom’s family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption.‘

Daniel C Snell, ‘Life in the Ancient Near East, 3100-332 BCE’, 1997, page 52, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

The daughter entered the master’s household as an adopted daughter belonging to the master’s family, and was contracted as the wife of either the master or one of the master’s sons. She did not become the property of her ‘master’, nor was she an indentured servant:


‘The mōhar was a sum of money or its equivalent, which the fiance paid to the girl’s father as a compensation to the family. It was not, strictly speaking, the purchase price, but the customary wedding money.’

Harris, RL, Archer, GL, & Waltke, BK, ‘Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament ‘, 1999, page 492


‘For the groom’s family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms’ right to the bride.’

‘Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of ‘wife’.’

Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat, ‘Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia’, 1998, page 133, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Until the daughter’s marriage was finalized, she remained in the master’s household and custody:


Exodus 21:
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the male servants do.

The word here translated ‘female servant’ is the word ‘amah’. It is not the word for a chattel slave, or even the word for a hired employee, and although it is a word used for a female servant, it is not used in that sense here but in the sense of one who is under obligation to a master:


‘The Hebrew term ‘amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Exodus 21, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

She does not ‘go out as the male servants do’, because she is not free to leave until the marriage has been completed and her contract has been fulfilled:


‘The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Exodus 21, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005


‘The parents of the bride had given their consent to what amounted to an adoption of their daughter by her prospective bridegroom and his household. They had agreed to a riksa4tim, “a contract concerning their daughter,” [51] after receipt of a bride-price.

[51] Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, p. 31.’

‘However, this is not to say that she was to be considered chattel, or that the marriage agreement was treated in the same light as the sale of land or other property.’

Victor H Matthews, ‘Marriage and Family in the Ancient Near East’, in ‘Marriage and Family in the Biblical World’, 2003, Ken Campbell (editor), page 10

The man who purchased her was called her master because she had entered his custody and was not free to leave that custody without fulfilling the marriage contract, but she did not perform servile duties, unlike a son or daughter sold as an indentured servant. Her master was accountable to the law for his treatment of her, she had the legal status of a free woman, and children born to her were automatically free (unlike the children born to a slave). If she had been contracted to his son, the master was to treat her as his own daughter, even before the marriage took place:


Exodus 21:
9 And if he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her after the manner of daughters.

If the master failed to marry her as he had promised he was considered in breach of the contract, and the daughter was free to be redeemed by her family. The master had no right to retain her or to sell her to recover the cost of the ‘bride price’:


Exodus 21:
8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her.

Finally, if the man to whom she was married took another wife, he was not to neglect the woman who had been contracted to him. If his support for her diminished, she was free to leave him and had no further contractural obligations:


Exodus 21:
10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights.
11 And if he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.


‘The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price.’

Nahum M Sarna, ‘Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodus’, 1991, note on Exodus 21, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

There is nothing in the entire passage about this daugther being sold into perpetual slavery. The passage speaks of a marriage contract between a freeman’s daughter and another freeman or his son, with a list of obligations to be fulfilled by both parties, and a careful legal protection of the woman’s rights if the contract is breached or if her husband does not provide sufficient care for her:


‘Though an owner may be unhappy with a female slave he has bought for himself, he is to permit her to be freed by the payment of a price, apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his own family, perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her, he has no right to sell her to “a strange family”, a family unknown to her, perhaps even one outside the covenant community of Israel. If he keeps her within his own family, yet takes another woman as his own wife or concubine, he is not to deny her the basic rights which his purchase of her for himself guaranteed in the first place.’

‘If the owner refuses to provide the female slave with these fundamental rights, he waives his claim of possession, and she is free to go her own way. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. Mendelsohn has cited Nuzian sale contracts which almost exactly parallel the Exodus provisions. Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slavebride are given in sequence to the “guiding principles” for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free.’

‘Word Biblical Commentary’, volume 2, note on Exodus 21, as quoted by Glenn Miller, ‘Does God condone slavery in the Bible?’, 2005

Vassalage

Powerful states placed the entire population of weaker states under vassalage, a form of servitude which bound the subordinate state to serve the dominant state. A ‘suzerainty treaty’ was draw up, binding the members of the vassal state to certain conditions of service to the suzerain (the dominant state), which included providing physical labour for construction works, maintaining diplomatic loyalty to the suzerain, providing military support when the suzerain went to war, and supplying tribute to the suzerain in the form of materials and products (such as gold, livestock and manufactured goods):


‘Suzerainty treaty

In the ancient near East, a treaty between political unequals, the suzerain or paramount ruler and the vassal or subservient power. (A treaty between equals is a parity treaty.) The purpose of suzerainty treaties, originating in the Hittite Empire of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 B.C.E.), was to guarantee that a smaller state remained the faithful ally of the empire and did not pursue an independent foreign policy. Starting with Elias Bickerman in 1951, scholars have compared the resemblance of biblical literature to these suzerainty treaties, which share a common structure known as the covenant formulary.’

DG Myers, ‘Glossary Of Biblical Interpretation’, Department of English, Texas A&M University, 1999

This was arguably the least rigorous and most advantageous form of servitude in the ANE, since it involved an agreement between two states, and generally affected the daily life of the individual member of the community very little. Members of the vassal state were regarded as ‘slaves’ in the sense that they were under servitude to their suzerain and their liberties were ultimately dependent on him, though they continued to live their lives as they had before, retaining their existing kinship rights, marriage rights, property rights, contract rights, economic rights, legal rights and protection, freedom of movement, and personal liberty.

The only real change was that they now had to supply an additional tax for the suzerain (usually an annual tribute), and could be drafted en masse by the suzerain for labour projects and military campaigns. In the latter case, they were relocated to the site of the labour project or the suzerain’s army, and their personal liberty was infringed.

Whist vassalage through suzerainty treaties was always to the greater advantage of the suzerain, the vassal state also benefitted from the contract. The suzerainty treaty actually bound the suzerain with certain obligations towards the vassal state, requiring the suzerain to care for his subjects and provide military protection for them from their enemies. Suzerainty treaties usually described the suzerain’s historical care of the vassal state, and even the personal care provided by the suzerain for the subordinate ruler. The treaty sometimes even mentioned the obligation of the suzerain to ‘love’ the vassal:


‘Beginning outside the Old Testament, we may point to texts from the 18th to the 7th centuries BC, in which we find the term love used to describe the loyalty and friendship joining independent kings, sovereign and vassal, king and subject. However, a similar love also binds sovereign and vassal. The Pharaoh is expected to love his vassal.’

‘To love Pharaoh is to serve him and to remain faithful to the status of vassal…Continuing down to the first millennium, we find this terminology still in use. A vassal mst [sic] still love his sovereign. The vassals convoked by Esarhaddon to insure loyalty to his successor Assurbanipal are told: “You will love as yourselves Assurbanipal.” In another text we find a similar declaration under oath: “…the king of Assyria, our lord, we will love.”‘

(Pp.104-105, William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” Frederick E. Greenspahn, Editor. Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. New York. New York University Press. 1991 ISBN 0-8147-3037-X. Originally published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 1963. Vol 25, pp.77-87)’

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, ‘The Decalogue, a 2nd or 1st Millennium BCE Creation?’, 2002

Vassalage existed under the Law of Moses, and cities which surrendered to the Hebrews were normatively placed under vassalage:


‘There existed two types of covenants in Israel, as well as in the ancient Near East. The promissory covenants bound the suzerain (master) to the vassal (servant) unconditionally. The obligatory covenants, also known as the suzerainty treaties, bound the vassal (servant) to be faithfully obedient to the suzerain (master).’

René Lopez, ‘Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants’, Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, volume 10, Spring 2004


Deuteronomy 20:
10 When you approach a city to wage war against it, offer it terms of peace.
11 If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.

The text here from the New English Translation does not adequately describe the situation, since the passage actually uses the Hebrew word ‘mas’, referring explicitly to vassals who are placed under tribute, and the Hebrew phrase here is actually ‘become as a vassal and will serve you’. This does not describe the personal enslavement of the individuals of the city, to be sold among the Hebrews as household slaves, but refers to the city being placed under vassalage to Israel. The citizens would retain their city and place of residence, continuing their lives as they had before, with the difference that now they were required to supply tribute (usually through a tax of money or goods), and service in the form of manual labour (it appears that the Hebrews did not require military service of their vassals). They retained their personal liberty and property, but were now subject to Hebrew law, tribute, and service.

This same term (‘mas’), is also used for the ‘taskmasters’ who were set over the Hebrew slaves by the Egyptians (Exodus 1:11), and also for the Israelites who were conscripted by the king of Israel into civil service for public works (2 Samuel 20:24, 1 Kings 4:6; 5:13-14; 9:15, 21; 12:18, 2 Chronicles 10:18), proving that it did not involve entire populations being broken up and sold as chattel slaves or even as indentured servants, nor did it involve a loss of personal liberty or property. The Hebrews are recorded as having subjected a number of cities and states to vassalge (Joshua 9:3-27; 16:10; 17:13, Judges 1:28, 30-35), and are also recorded as having fulfiled their obligations to the suzerainty treaty by protecting their vassals from military attack by hostile forces.

In the following passage, the Israelites come to the military aid of the Gibeonites, their vassals:


Joshua 10:
6 The men of Gibeon sent this message to Joshua at the camp in Gilgal, “Do not abandon your subjects! Rescue us! Help us! For all the Amorite kings living in the hill country are attacking us.“
7 So Joshua and his whole army, including the bravest warriors, marched up from Gilgal.

Unlike usual ANE suzerainty treaties however, the Hebvrews did not rqeuire their vassal to attack their enemies, or to raise armies in defence of Israel. Nor did they even require their vassals to raise armies in their own self defence. Their vassals enjoyed the benefits of Hebrew military protection without the disadvantage of having to contribute to it themselves.

Suzerainty treaties always included clauses invoking the vengeance of the gods on the vassals if they did not obey the terms of the treaty, but remarkably the Hebrew suzerainty treaty actually placed the burden of Divine punishment for breach of treaty on the Hebrews, not their vassals. When the Gibeonites were persecuted and murdered by one of the families of the tribe of Benjamin, God punished the Hebrew nation for their breach of the suzerainty treaty (2 Samuel 21:1), and the king of Israel was required to compensate the Gibeonites for their loss (2 Samuel 21:2-9). This demonstrates that the Hebrew suzerainty treaty placed a higher order of obligation on the suzerain (in this case Israel), than it did on the vassal (in this case the Gibeonites), a situation unique in the ANE.


Reference : http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

CWH
06-09-2014, 08:56 AM
Thanks Craig, that was an excellent article on the Hebrew laws on slavery and expanded my knowledge of the humaneness fHebrew treatments on their slaves. :thumb:I have always known that the treatment of slaves by the Hebrews were much better compared to other tribes and God's laws were better than man-made laws such as Hammurabi.

Thanks and God Bless. :pray:

Rose
06-09-2014, 09:21 AM
So summing up so far, the Bible definitely does the following -

1. Supports the inferior status of women.

2. Supports the existence of a slave trade where foreign slaves can be bought and then kept in perpetual slavery.

3. Allows you to beat a slave severely, as long as you don't maim him or her.

4. If Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 7 years, then why not foreign slaves? This seems unfair since both are equally human, and have the same needs.

These rules are not regarded as good according our current standards, making it difficult for our modern society to judge the author of the Bible as completely good, perfect, eternal and unchanging

It seems quite sad and ironic that despite all the effort I have made to find evidence that God exists, He is undone by the words of His own mouth. In a sense He condemns Himself.....implodes.

Hi Craig,

Believe me I understand exactly how you feel. When Richard and I first started asking the tough moral questions, we found that all the answers we got forced us to compromise our integrity in some way. I know some people like Cheow don't seem to mind the immoralities and human rights violations found in the Bible, but we could not remain true to our human values and accept them.

The first thing that really opened my eyes, was the fact that at every turn of the page my moral values far exceeded those of the Biblegod, this in and of itself was enough to cause some serious re-thinking of biblical morality on my part. :sCo_hmmthink:Secondly, when I started comparing the mindset of most cultures of the biblical time period, I found them to reflect the thinking of the Biblegod.

As you have pointed out the Bible supports the inferior status of women, owning slaves, and the killing of innocent people for the crimes of their parents ... this is just WRONG! Also, even in the New Testament Jesus does not condemn the many human rights violations imposed on people by biblical laws, which means he supported them.

I know the place where you are at now is tough, but in the long run the only thing that matters is TRUTH. If you are anything like me, when you come to the place where you realize that the Biblegod is just a construct of the primitive human mind who lacked knowledge to understand the world around them, you will feel a tremendous sense of relief and freedom. :woohoo:The struggle to try and justify all the immoralities in the Bible is a huge burden that we don't realize we have till it's gone!! :sunny:

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose
06-09-2014, 09:55 AM
And how many times must I tell you that bodily discharges are not sinful and that the sin offering is done to remind people not to sin as in the case of Eve. The Bible God srequire bloody sacrifice, He desire righteousness, mercy over sacrifices as I have already cited several verses on these....unless you are blind. The bloody sacrifce is to remind them that they will likewise perished if they sinned; this is one of the meaning of the life is in the blood. Everybody knows that blood does not cleanse sin. The Hebrew Never sacrifice humans but animals. Don't we also asacrifice animals for food and to celebrate festivities? How barbaric are we?

You are the blind one! Post after post you make up your own justifications and refuse to look at what the Bible actually says! The Bible explicitly says that menstruation is UNCLEAN and requires a SIN offering and a burnt offering to appease god. You are just making up "the sin offering is done to remind people not to sin as in the case of Eve." Nowhere in the Bible does it say that!!





You are the one who introduced the idea of unlawfulness. Leviticus states that for issues of uncleanness a sin offering is required. The natural process of menstruation was considered unclean and therefore a sin offering was required ... that is a very primitive and barbaric idea. Menstruation is NOT by its nature unclean anymore than the blood flowing from a wound is unclean. It is only when people do not practice proper hygiene that bodily fluids become unclean.

I have already explain to you uncleanliness is not sin unless the uncleaniliness leads to infecting self and others knowingly or unknowingly. Supposed you infect others by your uncleanliness, don't you think you should offer compensation or at least an apology? Menses if left unwashed harbor germs and it takes time for the blood loss to be replaced, that's why the women needed to rest for several days.

Again, you are just making stuff up to try and justify the biased and immoral actions of the Biblegod! The Bible clearly states that a woman is UNCLEAN from the first day of menstruation and must offer a SIN offering and a burnt offering in order to cleanse herself. The same principle of uncleaness does not apply to excrement, which really is unclean.


The point I am stressing, that fresh shit does not contain many harmful germs but many good germs which is why they are used in treating chronic diarrhea. But shit if left unclean harbors germs. There is no sin offering for feces but only for menses,...why?.... because as a reminder not to sin like Eve. Same as Americans celebrate the 4th of July in order to remember the struggle for the day of independence.

God Bless. :pray:

It doesn't matter how many or few harmful bacteria excrement has, it is still a WASTE product and UNCLEAN, yet laws of sacrifice do not apply to something that is really unclean!

Your answer for why there is a sin offering for menses is pathetic, and again, just made up! If the Biblegod truly did require a sin offering for menses because of Eve's sin, that would prove once again his unjust and unfair nature ... punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty! How shameful. :nono:

Your pathetic and lame justifications for the immoralities in the Bible, only lead me to believe that your moral values have been seriously corrupted. I am truly saddened.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-09-2014, 10:07 AM
Hi Rose,

I posted a response to CWH above, which seems to vindicate God concerning the laws of Slavery to a large extent.

Regarding the status of women, I think that CWH's observation that men have a protective role is interesting.

Craig

Rose
06-09-2014, 10:16 AM
Hi CWH

here is an article I found on Slaves in the Bible -

A closer look at the slave laws shows that runaway slaves were to be given safe refuge and allowed to settle where ever they chose. See Deuteronomy 23 v 13 . So if they did not like their masters treatment, they could always leave. In this way, slavery was similar to being employed in a company today for life.

Given that slaves had this freedom, then conditions must have been reasonable enough for them to want to stay. All slaves had one day of leisure each week , and certain holidays each year so they could participate in Festivals with their master's family. They also were not required to work during the sabbatical years and years of Jubilee..

Whilst corporal punishment was allowed, permanent injury was illegal, and killing a slave was to be compensated life for life.

In addition to all this, the guiding spirit of the law - to do unto others as you would have them do unto you - applied. See Leviticus 19 v 33, 34, Deut 10 v 19

Finally, laws required that Israelite slaves be freed in the 7th year - the year of Jubilee.

In fact the whole of Israel's history is framed around this Sabbath cycle, the cycle of forgiveness and mercy - every 430 years or 70 Sabbath years God would draw near and we could find rest - and He would make a covenant with us.

So, once more you are correct CWH.





Reference : http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

Hello Craig,

While I understand your attempt to try and lessen the negative connotations of slavery, it is still a huge humans rights violation to own a human as property!! It looks really bad when people try to justify and reason away biblical slavery, when the truth of the matter is the Biblegod allows the buying and selling of humans and says not one word to condemn it.

Slavery is WRONG any way you look at it!!

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose
06-09-2014, 10:29 AM
Hi Rose,

I posted a response to CWH above, which seems to vindicate God concerning the laws of Slavery to a large extent. Next I shall look at the question of genocide. God must be allowed a fair and good hearing - after all, he is our Creator.

Hi Craig,

Have you ever stopped and wondered why we as humans should be put in a position to have to try and defend God, or vindicate him?

If we get our moral values from the Biblegod, why do our morals appear to be so much better than his?

It should be no harder for god to support and promote equal human rights, then it is for him to support and promote slavery, discrimination against women and punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. The direct correlation between the morals of the time period and the morals of the Biblegod, is something that is too obvious to overlook. Doesn't it seem strange that as the morals of humans evolve, so do the morals of god?? Something to think about ... :sCo_hmmthink:


Kind regards,
Rose

David M
06-09-2014, 11:38 AM
A closer look at the slave laws shows that runaway slaves were to be given safe refuge and allowed to settle where ever they chose. See Deuteronomy 23 v 13 . So if they did not like their masters treatment, they could always leave. In this way, slavery was similar to being employed in a company today for life.

Given that slaves had this freedom, then conditions must have been reasonable enough for them to want to stay. All slaves had one day of leisure each week , and certain holidays each year so they could participate in Festivals with their master's family. They also were not required to work during the sabbatical years and years of Jubilee..
Hello Craig and Cheow
There is an interesting story in Philemon. It concerns Onesimus, a runaway slave, who seems to have robbed his master. He joins up with Paul and Paul advises him to go back to his master and for his master to treat him well when he returns.
Paul does not condemn the slave industry. Many people were glad to have a job for life. Many people today would like a job for life while there are those who do not want to work at all and expect to live off the state.

Is it not a human right for someone to choose to be in the employ of someone for life? It is a human right to be treated fairly and in the service as a slave/servant then as long as the employer does not abuse his servants, then there is nothing wrong with slavery. I think we have to defined slavery in different terms and there are clearly cases where task masters have no respect for human rights.

I do not think it can be proved that where in the Bible slavery is condoned as normal practice between employer and employee, it can be found that the Bible condones the abuse of human rights. One thing the Bible does teach us is just how bad man treats his fellow man. That is why we should look forward to the kingdom of God being fully established where human rights will not be a talking point.


All the best
David

Rose
06-09-2014, 12:31 PM
Hello Craig and Cheow
There is an interesting story in Philemon. It concerns Onesimus, a runaway slave, who seems to have robbed his master. He joins up with Paul and Paul advises him to go back to his master and for his master to treat him well when he returns.
Paul does not condemn the slave industry. Many people were glad to have a job for life. Many people today would like a job for life while there are those who do not want to work at all and expect to live off the state.

Is it not a human right for someone to choose to be in the employ of someone for life? It is a human right to be treated fairly and in the service as a slave/servant then as long as the employer does not abuse his servants, then there is nothing wrong with slavery. I think we have to defined slavery in different terms and there are clearly cases where task masters have no respect for human rights.

I do not think it can be proved that where in the Bible slavery is condoned as normal practice between employer and employee, it can be found that the Bible condones the abuse of human rights. One thing the Bible does teach us is just how bad man treats his fellow man. That is why we should look forward to the kingdom of God being fully established where human rights will not be a talking point.


All the best
David

Hello David, :yo:

I know you addressed your post to Craig and Cheow, but since I have been discussing these things with them on this thread I thought I would give some input here as well. :D

Above all else, my main concern and focus has been on promoting equal human rights. You have accurately pointed out that the Bible does condone the violation of human rights, and in many cases the laws themselves command that those violations be carried out.

Paul does not condemn the slave industry and neither does Jesus, or any other prominent figure in the Bible, for to do so would be going directly against what the Biblegod deemed to be acceptable and written into the law. It matters not in terms of morality if certain slaves chose to stay with their master for their own personal reasons ... to suggest that doing so somehow validates slavery is shameful. Slavery is forced upon someone and is always WRONG! It is always WRONG to own another person. When someone chooses to be in the service of another for life, then that is a free choice and they can leave whenever they so desire ... that is not called slavery.

No court in the land would uphold any of the forms of slavery that the Bible condones and approves of, they would be struck down as morally WRONG!! If the Biblegod was taken to court on human rights violations he would be found guilty on many, many counts. He would Probably get eternity in prison. :lol:

We don't need the Bible to show us how bad people treat each other, just look around. Why do you think that the Bible is so full of people abusing each other? Because it was written by humans. :p


Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-09-2014, 12:43 PM
Hi Rose,

I posted a response to CWH above, which seems to vindicate God concerning the laws of Slavery to a large extent. Next I shall look at the question of genocide. God must be allowed a fair and good hearing - after all, he is our Creator.

Hello again Craig, :yo:

If we are going to allow the Biblegod a just and fair hearing, then we must take him to a court of law. I can be the prosecuting attorney and you can be the defending attorney, so let the proceedings begin ...

The first charge is slavery ... how does the Biblegod plead?

Will the defense please take the stand.

Kind regards,
Rose

Gambini
06-09-2014, 01:33 PM
Hey Koop :yo:

"I posted a response to CWH above, which seems to vindicate God concerning the laws of Slavery to a large extent"

It doesn't just vindicate him, it's actually even MORE evidence for the biblical God. Here's why ...

What are the odds that the most morally "developed" (if you will) ancient religion just happens to come from the *ONLY* God with any kind of evidence (such as the "Creation Holograph", the genetic links to Genesis 1:1, the "bible wheel" etc...)??? That actually ADDS to the evidence. Is it just a "coincidence" that the ONLY God with any evidence (the biblical God) just happens to be the one to lay out the most morally "developed" laws for THAT period??? ...

The fact of the matter is that the CIVIL laws of ancient Israel were never intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited for the CIRCUMSTANCES of that time). God was basically taking a people out of a primitive world and GRADUALLY bringing them to a higher morality. That's why the Israelites had the highest level of morality, which eventually culminates in the gospel. And here's yet ANOTHER point that shows it was the biblical God who gave the ancient Israelites the most morally "developed" system of laws known in the ancient world ...

WHY is it that virtually ALL the moral advancements in our modern world just happened to have come out of CHRISTIAN societies??? Is it just a "coincidence" that the ONLY God with any kind of evidence just happens to be the very God of Christianity and that all the moral advancements in our modern world would come out of CHRISTIAN societies???

So to sum up, are these all "coincidences" ...

1) The ONLY God with any kind of evidence (the biblical God) is credited with inspiring the MOST morally "developed" system of laws known in the ancient world.

2) The ONLY God with any kind of evidence (the biblical God) is credited as the founder of Christianity and virtually ALL the moral advancements in our modern world just happens to have come out of CHRISTIAN societies.

3) Out of literally hundreds of MILLIONS of gods that man has concocted, the ONLY God with any kind of evidence (the biblical God) just happens to be the very God that is most recognized as God throughout the world.


"I shall look at the question of genocide"

There is no genocide. Genocide means to seek the extinction of a people BASED on their ethnicity. God is God. If he orders the death of someone, then he obviously did so for reasons that are not fully known to us (given the hidden variables of ANY act, which can never be fully known to a finite being). Look at it like this, God BY DEFINITION has full knowledge of what time will or can produce (since he created time at the moment of creation). So it is literally impossible for God to ever be wrong in killing (or ordering the killing of) ANYONE because he has full knowledge of every person AND of the casual chain of events that is necessarily initiated in every act.

Btw, according to the book of Jubilees, which predates the NT and was even found among the dead sea scrolls, the Canaanites were on STOLEN land to begin with! According to the tradition detailed in the book of Jubilees, the three sons of Noah made an agreement that the children of Shem would have the land of Israel for themselves, but certain members of Ham's descendants BROKE that agreement and STOLE Shem's land. And then God gave the Canaanites *400 years* to pack up their bags and move on out. They refused and got smashed. Good riddance.


BINI

Craig.Paardekooper
06-10-2014, 02:16 PM
Hello Rose, David, CHW and Gambini,

Could we look at the big issue of sexual inequality in the Bible? It is a pressing issue, and together we might be able to resolve it.

I have always thought that in the Bible the man was head of the family, and the woman was second, but certainly was not just a piece of property to be used and abused

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers" 1 Peter 3-4

Rose
06-10-2014, 03:06 PM
Hello Rose, David, CHW and Gambini,

Could we look at the big issue of sexual inequality in the Bible? It is a pressing issue, and together we might be able to resolve it.

I have always thought that in the Bible the man was head of the family, and the woman was second, but certainly was not just a piece of property to be used and abused.

Hello Craig,

Yes, we need to look at the big picture of not only gender bias in the Bible, but also human rights violations in general. Biblical laws were based on those found in Patriarchal societies, where men ruled over women and considered them to be property. In the Bible the female started out being owned by her father and then was sold to become the property of the husband. That doesn't necessarily mean she would be abused, but she definitely was treated as an inferior with limited rights.

All throughout the Bible, the woman is considered to be under the headship of the man, and therefore not given the same equal human rights. This primitive mindset has carried over into modern times by those who look at the Bible as the word of god. There is nothing fair or just about denying half the population equality with the other half, as biblical teachings promote. To allow our lives to be governed by the ideas and thinking of primitive, ignorant men is ridiculous. Nothing short of complete, and total equal human rights, as is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/), is FAIR or JUST.

I have thought about this issue long and hard, and the only solution I can find to the blatant gender bias found in the Bible, is that biblical laws were written from the minds of men who lived in Patriarchal societies, and thus reflected their ideas onto the god they created. If you attribute the biblical laws to a creator god, then you must conclude that he is a god that is neither just, or fair and prefers the male over the female. These are the only two options that I can see are available.

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-10-2014, 04:29 PM
Yes, we need to look at the big picture of not only gender bias in the Bible, but also human rights violations in general. Biblical laws were based on those found in Patriarchal societies, where men ruled over women and considered them to be property. In the Bible the female started out being owned by her father and then was sold to become the property of the husband. That doesn't necessarily mean she would be abused, but she definitely was treated as an inferior with limited rights.

All throughout the Bible, the woman is considered to be under the headship of the man, and therefore not given the same equal human rights. This primitive mindset has carried over into modern times by those who look at the Bible as the word of god. There is nothing fair or just about denying half the population equality with the other half, as biblical teachings promote. To allow our lives to be governed by the ideas and thinking of primitive, ignorant men is ridiculous. Nothing short of complete, and total equal human rights, as is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is FAIR or JUST.

I have thought about this issue long and hard, and the only solution I can find to the blatant gender bias found in the Bible, is that biblical laws were written from the minds of men who lived in Patriarchal societies, and thus reflected their ideas onto the god they created. If you attribute the biblical laws to a creator god, then you must conclude that he is a god that is neither just, or fair and prefers the male over the female. These are the only two options that I can see are available.


I just read an article - http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

Not everything in our universe is equal. For example, all people are beneath God, who is acknowledged as the highest. So our universe definitely has a hierarchy. It is NOT just a flat democracy. If God had appointed women as leaders of men, then so be it, but if he appointed men as leaders then so be it.

What Rose seeks to establish here is that -

1. the roles allotted to women by God - the roles of helper and mother - are inferior

2. the roles allotted to men by God - the roles of protector, provider and leader - are superior

3. both genders should have freedom to adopt the same roles.

4. the Bible regards women in general as of less value than men


I think that in this situation, the first thing to do is to establish the central roles that the Bible alots to women and to men. A deeper understanding of these roles is necessary.

Rose
06-10-2014, 05:09 PM
I just read an article - http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

Not everything in our universe is equal. For example, all people are beneath God, who is acknowledged as the highest. So our universe definitely has a hierarchy. It is NOT just a flat democracy. If God had appointed women as leaders of men, then so be it, but if he appointed men as leaders then so be it.

What Rose seeks to establish here is that -

1. the roles allotted to women by God - the roles of helper and mother - are necessarily bad and inferior

2. the roles allotted to men should also be allotted to women.

3. the Bible regards women in general as no more valuable than property


I think that in this situation, the first thing to do is to establish the central roles that the Bible alots to women and to men. A deeper understanding of these roles is necessary.

Hey there Craig,

I think I need to clarify my position ... I will do so in red.


What Rose seeks to establish here is that -

1. the roles allotted to women by God - the roles of helper and mother - are necessarily bad and inferior. No, being a mother does not need to be allotted to women, because by nature we can become mothers. Secondly, in a marriage both the husband and wife should be helpers to each other. Men are human, and as such prone to be abusive ... no just god would ever assign men to be in control of women. It's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house! :eek:

2. the roles allotted to men should also be allotted to women. No again, roles should not be allotted to either men or women. In a marriage men and women should assume the roles they are best suited for, whatever that might be. Marriage is a partnership that should be entered into freely by both parties, because they care about each other and want a relationship. Men should not be put in a position to make the rules about that partnership.

3. the Bible regards women in general as no more valuable than property. Yes, that is true. The Bible is patterned after a Patriarchal system that puts men in control of making the rules that govern women's lives. Women are just as human as men and are entitled to equal human rights, which the Bible does not afford women.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 01:37 AM
I found this article on the genocide against the Midianites


Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?


The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God’s cruelty or His “nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds”. The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the statements people have sent into me about this event:





“Speaking of which, isn't this the same God who commanded the genocide of the Midianites? The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves?



And



“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.



And



The Bible is rife with examples of God's acting in a manner inconsistent with goodness… consider the passage relating the story of Israel's war with Midian (Num. 31), wherein, as I intend to show, God sanctions the very crimes that he should abhor, namely, murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse.



First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2)



Moses and the children of Israel obey: And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. (vs. 7, my italics)



The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and all the unvirginal women: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)



Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (vs. 18)



Thus, in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse.



First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all the Midianite boys and unvirginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such actions as these (with less accord on the issue of war itself), considering them so evil that they must be prevented, even at high cost, and punished when efforts at prevention fail.

……………………..



These are some serious accusations to make against the God portrayed in the bible, and allegations that should disturb the hearts of all warm-blooded people.



Right off the bat, though, there are several obvious historical errors in these brief statements, and several assumptions that have no warrant whatsoever in either the text itself, or in the historical background of the ANE. The passage will be difficult enough to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first ‘weed out the chaff’ among these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface the actual ethical issues and dynamics.]



First of all, let’s look at the specific text they are referring to, in Numbers 31:



Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire. And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.



And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. “And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. “And you shall purify for yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats’ hair, and all articles of wood.”





And the division of the ‘booty’:



Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers’ households of the congregation, take a count of the booty that was captured, both of man and of animal; and divide the booty between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. “And levy a tax for the Lord from the men of war who went out to battle, one in five hundred of the persons and of the cattle and of the donkeys and of the sheep; take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest, as an offering to the Lord. “And from the sons of Israel’s half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys and of the sheep, from all the animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.” And Moses and Eleazar the priest did just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000. And the half, the portion of those who went out to war, was as follows: the number of sheep was 337,500, and the Lord’s levy of the sheep was 675, and the cattle were 36,000, from which the Lord’s levy was 72. And the donkeys were 30,500, from which the Lord’s levy was 61. And the human beings were 16,000, from whom the Lord’s levy was 32 persons. And Moses gave the levy which was the Lord’s offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Num 31.26ff)



……………….



Now, first let me dispose of a couple of the historical mistakes made by the objections mentioned above, and then we can get on to analyzing the severity of the actual event.



First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbis (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:


•Was the female pre-pubescent?
•Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
•Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?



Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).



For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:



“In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]



Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:



“Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:DLAM:135]



“The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]





In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.





Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above--to their credit--added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]



1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.



And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the world ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]





2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:



“During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]



3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:



“This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]



4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):



“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”



[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]



[I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]









Third, the accusation that the Midianites were singled out for destruction “because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor” is not at all present in the text (actually, NO reason is given in this passage). In fact, the reason for the warfare is explicitly given in 25.16ff as the unprovoked hostility and treachery of Moab/Midian (which we will look at in detail below):



“The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”





The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’. Nothing at all is said about treating them as enemies because they worshipped a different god…



So, at least we should see that some of the accusation elements above are contra-indicated by the data. There was no need for ‘virginity testing’; rape and sexual slavery is not in the passage at all; and the reason for the combat is not ‘disagreement over religious terminology’…





So, then, what WAS all this bloodshed about?



To establish the ‘why’ of this, we need to tell the whole story…and look at all the players: Midian, Moab, Israel.



Who were the Midianites?



Essentially, the Midianites were descendants of Abraham through Keturah, and by the time of Numbers 31, were a ‘tribal league’ of different clans and families. Some of the kin-group lived around the Gulf of Aqaba, in perhaps settlements, while other groups remained as nomads and raiders:



“The extreme northwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, immediately east of the Gulf of ‘Aqaba, was associated by the classical and medieval Arab geographers with the place name Madian or Madiama. It is generally agreed that these persevere the name of Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah and the ancestor of the Midianites of the Hebrew Bible.” [HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]



“The Midianites are portrayed in these [Biblical] traditions as nomadic sheep and camel herders, caravaneers, and raiders, ranging over a wide territory to the south and east of Canaan. There is no reason to suppose that this portrayal is not essentially correct, at least in part. However, recent archaeological survey in northwestern Arabia—the heartland of Midian—has indicated that this is not the whole story. There also existed, during the final centuries of the second millennium BCE, sedentary communities that should, in all, probability, be included among the Midianites…At the site of Qurayyah [Qurayyah is on the east of the Gulf of Aqaba, on a major trade route between Yemen and the Levant.].” [HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]





“As indicated above the biblical evidence suggests that the Midianites ranged over a large area, including northwest Arabia, southern Transjordan, the Arabah, portions of the Negeb, and possibly northern Sinai. Although northwest Arabia eventually became associated with the land of Midian, probably the range of the Midianites at one time was much larger…Further, some research has raised the possibility that Midian refers not to a land but to an amorphous league of tribes. This league dominated the people and areas of the southern Transjordan, Negeb, and portions of Arabia from the Late Bronze Age until approvimately the 11th century B.C., when other people gradually supplanted the league.” [ISBE]



“The presence of Midianite shepherd bands in the Sinai should not be a problem since the discovery of the Mari documents. Large-scale sheepherding requires considerable travel between summer and winter pasturages, often involving tens or hundreds of kilometers. There is no plausible objection to the presence of shepherd bands in the Sinai who were identified or identified themselves as adherents of the political/cultural system of the Midianites. The same is true of populations in the Jordan valley just N of the Dead Sea. The Midianites can no longer be regarded naively as primitive nomadic barbarians; they were a complex and cosmopolitan civilization with a highly diverse economy and, in all probability, an extensive control system for a few decades that included parts of Palestine and Transjordan. [ABD, “Midian”, Mendenhall]





Around the time of the exodus, the Midianites closer to Egypt (where we have the evidence of settlements and industry), were hospitable to Moses and have a positive image in the biblical tradition (as Kenites):



“The hospitality of Jethro to Moses is commendable, but beyond that the Midianites were a people hostile to Israel.” [ZPEB]



“The Kenites were a Midianite tribe (Nu. 10:29; Jdg. 1:16; 4:11). The name means ‘smith’, and the presence of copper SE of the Gulf of Aqabah, the Kenite-Midianite region, confirms this interpretation. The Kenites first appear as inhabitants of patriarchal Canaan (Gn. 15:19). Subsequently Moses becomes son-in-law of Reuel (Ex. 2:18), and invites Hobab his son to accompany the Israelites, coveting his nomadic skill (Nu. 10:29). Kenites accompanied Judah into their inheritance (Jdg. 1:16; 1 Sa. 27:10). They were spared by Saul in his Amalekite war (1 Sa. 15:6), and David cultivated their friendship (1 Sa. 30:29). The Rechabites were of Kenite stock (1 Ch. 2:55), and were prominent in post-exilic times (Ne. 3:14). [NBD, s.v. “Kenites”]







At the time of Numbers, the group of Midianites ‘up north’ were a dominant military force, albeit still with ‘ethics’ of raiders/slavetraders:



“For the Egyptians, the inhabitants of the arid regions of Sinai, the Hijaz, and Transjordan seem to have been subsumed under the term shasu and depicted as pastoralists and raiders, much as the Midianites are depicted in the Hebrew Bible.” [HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]





So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. ..36 Meanwhile, the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. (Gen 37:28, 36)



“Being desert people, their existence was nomadic. When some of them picked up Joseph, it was typical of their way of life—trading, traveling, and troubling others.” [ZPEB]



“The Midianites, along with the Amalekites and the ‘people of the East,’ periodically harassed certain tribes of Israel during the period of the Judges. Since Palestine at this time was particularly vulnerable due to the collapse of the Canaanite city-states and the decline of Egyptian influence, groups from the fringe areas could penetrate deeply into otherwise secure areas. Moving from the Transjordan region into the Jezreel Valley and beyond, the Midianites preyed upon Israel, apparently during the harvest times (Jgs. 6:1-6). The Israelites had difficulty dealing with the Midianites, who used the camel to make long raids and retreat quickly.” [ISBE, s.v. “Midian”]



“There is evidence that Midian exercised a protectorate over Moab, Edom, and Sinai from ca. 1250-1000 BC (Eissfeldt). Often Midian opposed Israel or became a subversive influence. [But note that both Midian and Moab at this time were vassals under the power of Sihon of the Amorites—cf. Josh 13.21]



The Midianites were allied with Moab, under the control of Sihon (who had already been defeated by Israel):



“The expression ‘towns in their dwellings’ leads to the conclusion that the towns were not the property of the Midianites themselves, who were a nomad people, but that they originally belonged in all probability to the Moabites, and had been taken possession of by the Amorites under Sihon. This is confirmed by Josh., xiii.21, according to which these five Midianitish vassals of Sihon dwelt in the land, i.e. in the kingdom of Sihon.” (p.226)



“Moab was closely associated with the Midianites, so much so that the elders of both peoples acted as one group when they went to the town of Pethor to bring back Baloam (Num 22:4–7). The Bible depicts the Midianites as largely a nomadic people. The point is this: for the Moabites to have been on such friendly terms with the Midianites, the former also were probably still largely nomadic, since from time immemorial there has been strife between the inhabitants of the desert and the residents of the towns in agricultural areas. Therefore the time of Moses must have been before the thirteenth century B.C. when the Moabites began to build permanent towns. [“New Light on the Wilderness Journey and the Conquest”—Grace Journal—V2—Spring 1961]





As a tribal league, the various tribal leaders could have radically different attitudes toward life, ethics, and Israel. Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro) and other Kenites were allied with Israel, but those farther north were generally hostile and predatory (cf. Heber the Kenite who was allied with Syria in Judges 5, the Midianite/Amalekite raids, and the Midianites in our passage). The more nomadic ones seemed to have been operating as raiders and slavetraders, wheras the less nomadic ones were more pastoralist in culture (cf. Jethro). The ‘northern’ Midianites are often linked with the cruel Amalekites and Canaanites in the biblical narratives (e.g., Judges 6,7).





Who were the Moabites?



The Moabites were a TransJordanian people, descended from Lot. They were generally hostile toward Israel, and appear to be somewhat insignificant at the time of our incident. Later, however, they became a significant nation, and was consistently hostile to Israel (along with her neighbors).



“Moab was the son of Lot by incestuous union with his eldest daughter (Gn. 19:37). Both the descendants and the land were known as Moab, and the people also as Moabites. The core of Moab was the plateau E of the Dead Sea between the wadis Arnon and Zered, though for considerable periods, Moab extended well to the N of the Arnon. The average height of the plateau is 100 m, but it is cut by deep gorges. The Arnon itself divides about 21 km from the Dead Sea and several times more farther E into valleys of diminishing depth, the ‘valleys of the Arnon’ (Nu. 21:14). The Bible has preserved the names of many Moabite towns (Nu. 21:15, 20; 32:3; Jos. 13:17-20; Is. 15-16; Je. 48:20ff.).



“In pre-Exodus times Moab was occupied and had settled villages until about 1850 bc. Lot’s descendants found a population already there, and must have intermarried with them to emerge at length as the dominant group who gave their name to the whole population. The four kings from the E invaded Moab and overthrew the people of Shaveh-kiriathaim (Gn. 14:5). Either as a result of this campaign, or due to some cause unknown, Transjordan entered on a period of non-sedentary occupation till just before 1300 bc, when several of the Iron Age kingdoms appeared simultaneously. Moab, like the others, was a highly organized kingdom with good agricultural and pastoral pursuits, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications in the shape of small fortresses strategically placed around her boundaries. The Moabites overflowed their main plateau and occupied areas N of the Arnon, destroying the former inhabitants (Dt. 2:10-11, 19-21; cf. Gn. 14:5). These lands were shared with the closely related Ammonites.



“Just prior to the Exodus, these lands N of the Arnon were wrested from Moab by Sihon, king of the Amorites. When Israel sought permission to travel along ‘the King’s Highway’ which crossed the plateau, Moab refused (Jdg. 11:17). They may have had commercial contact (Dt. 2:28-29). Moses was forbidden to attack Moab despite their unfriendliness (Dt. 2:9), although Moabites were henceforth to be excluded from Israel (Dt. 23:3-6; Ne. 13:1).” [NBD, s.v. “Moab”]



Moab figures prominently in the OT period as a nation, all the way up until the exile, but after the conquests of Babylon, Persia, and Alexander Janneaus, they are only known as a racial/ethnic group.



At the time of our incident, Moab occupies a territory thirty miles south of these events in Numbers 22-25,31.



“During periods of national strength, the Moabites controlled land that stretched from the Zered (Num. 21:12; Deut. 2:13-14) to the vicinity of ancient Heshbon, a territory whose maximum north-south extent was only about sixty miles and beyond whose northern frontier lay the kingdom of Ammon. When Moabite power waned, as in the heydey of the Amorite king Sihon and during periods of Israelite control in Transjordan, their domain was reduced to the undisputed heartland of Moab—the region between the Zered and the biblical River Arnon (modern Wadi el-Mujib).” [POTW:319]















What was Israel doing there, at the time of this event?



Israel had come up from the Wilderness Journeys, and was camped in the plains of Moab, across from Jericho. They were preparing to cross the river Jordan, to begin taking possession of the Land. They were at the end of forty years of nomadic, desert existence, and were STILL in desert surroundings (the Plains of Moab, by the Jordan). They had been resisted by the Transjordanian chiefdoms during their travels, and had been victorious in several unprovoked combat encounters.



Israel had been forbidden by God to attack Moab, or try to take their land [Deut 2:9: Then the LORD said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” ], and they had already passed by Moab’s territory, but Moab’s chief—Balak—was nonetheless afraid of Israel, and attempted to mount an (unprovoked) campaign against them.



Having been refused right of passage on the ‘easier’ Kings Highway, Israel had traveled north from the Sinai peninsula through the Way of the Wilderness, just to the east of the various Transjordanian nations of Edom, Moab, and Heshbon. The conflict with the Amorite Sihon, ruler of Heshbon, created a passageway from the Syrian desert over to the river Jordan. This pathway would have been some 30 miles north of the Arnon river, the then northernmost border of Moab.





Since Israel had already defeated Moab’s protector nation-state (i.e., the part of the Amorite kingdom controlled by Sihon), Balak was smart enough not to launch a ‘normal’ military attack on unsuspecting Israel (camping down in the plain, getting last minute instructions/laws from God, and generally resting up for the march across Jordan into Palestine), but decided to attempt to use sorcery against Israel. He consulted with his military advisors/superiors (Midian) and they persuaded an internationally known sorcerer/mantic to travel from Mesopotamia to Moab, to place a ‘curse’ on Israel:



The negotiation account is given in Numbers 22-24:



“Now Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. 3 So Moab was in great fear because of the people, for they were numerous; and Moab was in dread of the sons of Israel. 4 And Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this horde will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.” And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. 5 So he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, at Pethor, which is near the River, in the land of the sons of his people, to call him, saying, “Behold, a people came out of Egypt; behold, they cover the surface of the land, and they are living opposite me. 6 “Now, therefore, please come, curse this people for me since they are too mighty for me; perhaps I may be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land. For I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” 7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination in their hand; and they came to Balaam and repeated Balak’s words to him. 8 And he said to them, “Spend the night here, and I will bring word back to you as the Lord may speak to me.” And the leaders of Moab stayed with Balaam. 9 Then God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?” 10 And Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent word to me, 11 ‘Behold, there is a people who came out of Egypt and they cover the surface of the land; now come, curse them for me; perhaps I may be able to fight against them, and drive them out.’” 12 And God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them; you shall not curse the people; for they are blessed.” 13 So Balaam arose in the morning and said to Balak’s leaders, “Go back to your land, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” 14 And the leaders of Moab arose and went to Balak, and said, “Balaam refused to come with us.” 15 Then Balak again sent leaders, more numerous and more distinguished than the former. 16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor, ‘Let nothing, I beg you, hinder you from coming to me; 17 for I will indeed honor you richly, and I will do whatever you say to me. Please come then, curse this people for me.’” 18 And Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not do anything, either small or great, contrary to the command of the Lord my God. 19 “And now please, you also stay here tonight, and I will find out what else the Lord will speak to me.” 20 And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do.” 21 So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and went with the leaders of Moab. (Numbers 22)



Balak takes Balaam up to several mountains overlooking where Israel is camped (implying that Balak is substantially north of his territory, and is now in Amorite territory), and assists Balaam in trying to curse Israel with powers from the local gods of each mountain. Balaam is not allowed by God to place a curse on Israel, but instead pronounces a blessing and prophecies of Israel’s eventual rulership and future Messiah.



Balak, disappointed that he cannot get God to help him defeat Israel and ‘drive them far out of the land’, is angry at Balaam:



“Then Balak’s anger burned against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times! 11 “Therefore, flee to your place now. I said I would honor you greatly, but behold, the Lord has held you back from honor.” (Num 24.10)



Indeed, it looks as if the “tables are turned”:



“Since Israel had defeated the Amorite king, Sihon, who had himself defeated the Moabites, the Moabites had good reason to fear the Israelites (Num 21:23-31). Consequently, the Moabite king, Balak, in agreement with the Midianites, hired Balaam to curse Israel. In a series of prophetic oracles, Balaam pronounces a blessing on Israel but a curse on Moab (Num 22-24)! Specifically, Balaam prophesies of a royal figure, designated metaphorically as a “star” and “scepter” coming out of Jacob/Israel, who would militarily crush the Moabites (24:17). [NIDOTTE, s.v. “Moab, theology”]



The final verse of chapter 24 has Balaam leaving Balak’s presence and setting off for home, and Balak beginning his long ride home as well. It seems that Israel is safe from an unprovoked attack by Moab and Midian, and that they can prepare for crossing the Jordan ‘in peace’. They are dwelling ‘opposite’ Moab (22.5) and so do not have any interchanges with the Moabites/Midianites at that time. Israel seems poised to enter the Promised Land, and get on with their destiny…



But not so…for in Chapter 25 we have an amazing story that will be remembered in shame and horror by Israel throughout its history—the events and idolary of Baal Peor:



“The cultic center Beth Peor and the worship of the Baal of Peor became symbolic of religious apostasy for subsequent generations (Deut 4:3-4; Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28; Hos 9:10).” [NIDOTTE, s.v. “Moab, theology”]



Chapter 25 opens like this (translation taken from WBC):



And Israel stayed at Shittim, and the people began to have sexual relations with the Moabite women. 2 And these invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods. And the people ate, and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel.



4 And Yahweh said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people, and hang them in the sun before Yahweh, that the fierce anger of Yahweh may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Put to death, each of you, those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.”



Shittim is a small village about 5 miles from the Jordan, which had been recently captured by Israel from Sihon. Although Israel had destroyed all the ‘towns’ (fortified cities—the Hebrew in Deut 2.36 says “not a town was too high for us”—a reference to fortifications), outlying villages and hamlets may have been left without damage, and would have therefore presented temporary living quarters. There could have also been some of the local populace of Amorites and Midianites there (we shall see latter that they were occupying some of these towns).



Then, all of sudden, Moabite women (“daughters of Moab”) start showing up there--in large numbers—having traveled in groups from the kingdom of Moab thirty miles south of there. Travel in this part of the country, and at this time essentially was done by caravan, and under armed guards:



“Such difficulties and perils doubtlessly contributed to the fact that most international travel and communication was undertaken by caravans; in numbers, there was some protection against alien elements and agents. Considerable literary evidence from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor indicates that caravans were generally large and almost always escorted by security guards, armed by the public powers for their tasks, and that the caravanners were expected to stay strictly on the preordained route. It was not uncommon for caravans to include as many as 100 to 200 donkeys, sometimes carrying priceless commodities, and one extraordinary text from Mari refers to a caravan of 3,000 donkeys “ [ABD, “Travel and Communication (Old Testament World)”]



And the trip would have taken 2-3 days:



“The evidence is generally uniform and mutually corroborating that one day’s journey in the ancient world (for efficient non-military travel) incorporated between 17 and 23 miles” [ABD, “Travel and Communication (Old Testament World)”]



“As W. W. Hallo has calculated from the distances between known points in an Old Babylonian itinerary, the length of a daily stage of a caravan was between twenty-five and thirty kilometers [15.5-18.6 miles].” [OT:DLAM:275]





Ezra’s caravan, for example, likely only averaged 9 miles per day [ABD, “Travel and Communication (Old Testament World)”]



So, these Moabite women show up, with government funding and security escorts, having carefully planned the trip, and having left all family responsibilities on indefinite “hold” back in Moab…and the sequence of events runs like this (according to the text, which is a series of stark waw-consequtives):


1.The Moabite (and Midianite, as we know from verse 6) women show up at the Israel encampment.
2.The Israelite men immediately start having ‘regular’ sex with them--the Hebrew indicates extreme lustful abandon. (“The verb used to describe the action of the men is one normally used to describe the behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the people, as a man, bewhore themselves with foreign, pagan women. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of pagan religious systems of the day.” [EBCOT, Num 25])
3.This first reference to sex does not contain the notion of ‘sacred prostitution’—that will show up in a later step.
4.THEN, these women invited the Israelite men to their religious sacrifices (where meat and wine would have been served—the Israelites had not had very much meat during the 40 years in the wilderness). These would have likely been held at the religious shrines at or around the mount of Peor (one of the sites where Balak took Balaam), especially the shrine of Baal Peor, although smaller shrines, high places, and even shade-trees would have fit the Baal cult.
5.The Israelite men went with them and ate the sacrificial meal.
6.Then the Israelite men would have ‘bowed down’ to their pagan gods (probably as part of the ceremony), and engaged in ‘sacred sex’ due to the fertility nature of the Baal Peor god.
7.Then, a ‘critical mass’ of the people (i.e., “Israel” in the text)—including their leadership—were ‘yoked’ to Baal Peor.



This last step—a ‘yoking’—is likely an ancient cultic term, but we don’t have much indication of its meaning from history. It could mean something as formal as “joining in a covenant” (in violation of the exclusive Mosaic one they were already in!), or something as vivid as “sexual union” with the God, through ritual intercourse (a standard fertility motif). Almost any meaning of this word, since it is undoubtedly “worse than” just “bowing down” (v. 2), would be enough to seriously jeopardize Israel’s protection by Yahweh.



The Baal god, as we have described in more detail in the article on the Canaanites elsewhere (qamorite.html), had some particularly “family-unfriendly” destructive rituals:



“The Moabites worshipped the war god Cheomsh, but they must have also indulged in the fertility religion of Baal. This cult was marked by some of the most depraved religious practices in Canaan. In lurid and orgiastic rites, the worshippers would emulate the sacred prostitution of their gods and goddesses, often also participating in a ceremonial meal.” [HSOBX, at Num 25]



“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]



“Baal-peor or Baal of Peor was one of the leading gods of the Moabites, Midianites, and Ammonites, but akin to the Canaanite Baal and Moloch. The sensual rites of worship indicate a connection with the Phoenician Baal and the Moabite Chemosh. [ABD, “Baal Peor”]







This event was almost a recapitulation—with some heightening—of the sacred orgy Israel had started the Wandering with, back in Exodus 32, and God’s response was the same—anger at such disloyalty and treachery.



“In a sense this chapter matches the grim account of Israel's involvement in the pagan rites of the worship of the golden calf at the base of Sinai (Exod 32). The apostasy of Israel in their flagrant worship of the golden calf points back to Egypt. The golden calf was a symbol of the Egyptian bull-god Apis, likely referred to in Jeremiah 46:15. Apis was the sacred bull in Egypt, the incarnation of Osiris, the principal deity of Egypt. Exodus 32:6 reads, "So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry." The verb translated "to indulge in revelry" (lesaheq Piel infinitive construct of sahaq; meaning "to laugh" in the Qal--the word that forms the base for the name "Isaac") sometimes speaks of sexual involvement. It is a euphemism for "caressing" in sexual play (as in Gen 26:8). So in this chapter Israel engages in sexual acts of the worship of a god of Canaan.” [EBCOT, at Num 25]





One very detailed zoom-in of the situation is given in 25.6ff:



Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000…The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. 15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.





Commentators are generally quick to point out that this is VERY flagrant and VERY anti-covenant behavior, by two leaders, signifying complete abandonment of the God who was about to give them the Land:



“Among the Israelites, then, the Midianite and Moabite women continued to prostrate themselves in Baal worship, imitating fertility rituals. And one day, as all the Israelites were gathered in front of the tabernacle confessing their sin, the son of one of the leaders in the tribe of Simeon paraded before them with a Moabite [sic] woman, headed for his tent…Reading the situation clearly, Phinehas swung into action. By the time he reached them in the back (bedroom) part of the tent, the couple were already involved in sexual intercourse.” [HSOBX]



“By bringing a Midianite woman to his family, this man was encouraging all of his male kin to participate in this forbidden ritual—even though the people were supposed to be repenting for their previous idolatry. The ‘chamber’ into which they enter appears to be in the sacred enclosure and therefore suggests ritual intercourse. Though the ritual may have been fertility-oriented, the Israelites are not engaging in agriculture, so it is difficult to imagine what connection that might have here. “ [OT:BBCALL]



Where did this Midianite woman come from? The Moabite women would have traveled north, but the Midianite women (and presumably the leadership, since this woman is called the daughter of a prince/chieftain) would have also have had to have moved into the area. [For nomads, this is not much problem, and indeed, they could even have facilitated the travel of the Moabite women from the south.] In Numbers 31.10,11, they are said to have been in camps and in towns (which they were only occupying at the time). This would have situated them in either (a) Sihon’s old territory, toward Moab; or (b) Sihon’s old territory toward the east, now vacated by Israel. If the latter, they were ostensibly attempting to engage Israel somehow.





The scale and scope of this sexual atrocity was extensive, indicating that the number of Israelite men and Midianite/Moabite women would have been quite high:


•The plague on Israel was stopped after 24,000 Israelites were killed (presumably mostly men—they are called the ‘sons of Israel’) [25.9]
•A large group/most of the Israelite leadership was ordered by God to be executed, until the action of Phineas restored some stability to the situation [25.4]
•A chief leader of both the Israelites and of the Midianites are involved—in broad daylight—in this sexually-inspired fiasco [25.14-18]
•The Hebrew text consistently draws attention to the large number of Israelites involved, by using words like ‘the people’ and ‘the sons of Israel’.



This would have required several thousand (maybe even over 10,000) foreign women, to have precipitated and effected such a large scale apostasy, in such a short period of time. And these women would have had to have traveled deliberately to do just this…



And it is here at this point that the treachery of the Midianites becomes visible in the narrative: this was deliberate strategy on the part of the Midianite leadership to use ‘sex’ as a weapon, and have Israel abandon the protection and life-source of their God.



The verses give us the substance of the treachery and deceit:



The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.” [Num 25.16f]



“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. [Num 31.15]





So, Balaam somehow is back into the picture?! Somehow Balaam advised the women on how to turn the Israelites away from the Lord?!



“It appears that the Israelite men began to have sexual relations with the Moabite and Midianite women (Num 25:1,6). How such liaisons began we can only guess, but they seem to be connected with the bad advice given to the Moabites by the prophet Balaam, son of Beor. Prior to this event, the king of Moab had hired Balaam to curse the people of Israel; because of the strong hand of God on his life, however, Balaam had only been able to bless them. Apparently still bent on helping the Moabite king, Balaam had stayed on in the land of Moab and Midian. Numbers 31:16 informs us the ‘[the Midianite women] were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people.’ (Apparently the Midianites were in Moab giving military advice to the Moabites at this time). [HSOBX]



“Chs. 22-24 highlighted Moab’s attempt to overthrow Israel; Midian played a minor role in these chapters. Here the reverse is true—Midian is the chief actor, with Moab taking a supporting role.” [NICOT, Numbers, p516]



“In the further course of history, we learn that Balaam went to the Midianites, and advised them to seduce the Israelites to unfaithfulness to Jehovah, by tempting them to join in the worship of Peor. He was still with them at the time when the Israelites engaged in the war of vengeance against that people, and was slain by the Israelites along with the five princes of Midian.” [KD:1:202]



“As the princes of Midian, who were allied to Moab, had been the advisers and assistants of the Moabitish king in the attempt to destroy the Israelites by a curse of God; so now, after the failure of that plan, they were the soul of the new undertaking to weaken Israel and render it harmless, by seducing it to idolatry, and thus leading it into apostasy from its God.” [KD:1:203





I should also point out that for the Israelite male, the temptation/seduction was purely sexual at first—there was literally no religious motivation to seek Baal out:



“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]



“By bringing a Midianite woman to his family, this man was encouraging all of his male kin to participate in this forbidden ritual—even though the people were supposed to be repenting for their previous idolatry. The ‘chamber’ into which they enter appears to be in the sacred enclosure and therefore suggests ritual intercourse. Though the ritual may have been fertility-oriented, the Israelites are not engaging in agriculture, so it is difficult to imagine what connection that might have here. “ [OT:BBCALL]





In other words, Israel had no religious interest in an agricultural/vegetation god—the ‘attraction’ was purely physical…sex, then expensive meat/wine…



Only Balaam would have had the theological ‘sophistication’ to know that this would separate Israel from Yahweh, and so make Israel vulnerable to ‘normal’ military forces.





Let’s think about the implications of this for a second, in terms of how this would have occurred:


1.Balaam cannot help Moab in military ‘curses’, but on his way home he realizes that the God who protects Israel can inflict much more ‘damage’ than could Moab
2.He stops and counsels the Midianite princes on how to get Israel to abandon their Great Protector.
3.The Midianite princes agree to let Balaam appeal to the Midianite people (especially the women: “they are the ones who followed Balaam’s advice”) to enlist their aid in using sex as a weapon against Israel.



Then, one or more of the following absolutely incredible events had to have happened:


1.Either the women agreed with Balaam’s plan, and then talked their husbands into letting them commit wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment) [the wording of the text suggests that THIS is the most probable historical reconstruction];
2.Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then talked their wives into committing wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment);
3.Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then forced their wives into committing wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment)
4.Or the chiefs/elite of Midian forced both men and women to agree on committing wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment);



Additionally,
1.Fathers and mothers may have talked their unmarried daughters into (or forced them into) committing wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment);
2.The Midianite power forced the Moabite women to ‘lead the charge’ (but they disappear in the narrative after the first mention—everything else is ‘Midianite only’).
3.The government plans, funds, and orchestrates the mass caravans of Moabite women, and Midianite migration to the area where Israel is camping.



Now, I can perhaps see this occurring on a individual small scale—I’m sure it happens today in even ‘modern cultures’ to ‘get ahead’, but to think that a culture/nation would deliberately do this marriage-destructive, family-destructive, and de-humanizing atrocity on the scale of 5,000-15,000 wives/families (perhaps constituting most/all of the tribal group or sub-culture involved!), is staggering. As destructive as regular ‘ritual prostitution’ would have been to “healthy family life” in Canaanite areas in Palestine, this action by Midian makes that look wonderfully innocent and harmless by comparison…



And then, not content with destroying their own families (and teaching/showing the kids that ‘questionable national goals’ are more important than loyalty/intimacy in marriage), they use this to destroy another nation’s families and marriages.



“What the fathers of Moab could not do, their daughters were able to accomplish, to bring Israel to its knees--sexually, morally, in false worship, and in great judgment. . [EBCOT, Num 25]



And this is called a nakal—a deliberate deception:



“In every instance the essence of the meaning is to engage in deception, guile, craft through a deliberate plan/act [NIDOTE, s.v. “nakal”]



Pre-rabbinic Jewish tradition ‘remembers’ this event in similar images [Pseudo-Philo/LAB 18:13]:



“And then Balaam said to him, ‘Come and let us plan what you should do to them. Pick out the beautiful women who are among us and in Midian, and station them naked and adorned with gold and precious stones before them. And when they see them and lie with them, they will sin against their LORD and fall into your hands; for otherwise you cannot fight against them’” [OTP:2:326]





There was nothing ‘noble’ or ‘innocent’ or even ‘neutral’ about this plan—however it was actually implemented--it was deliberate, hostile, treacherous deception and destruction. And it wasn’t even characteristic of all of the Midianites—many of the Midianites were only ‘semi-bad’, some of them were good, some of them were ‘okay’…but this little pocket of Midianites perpetrated this de-personalizing and de-humanizing atrocity on their own families, on some of the Moabite women, and on many of the Israelite families. And God said “enough”…



I struggle with trying to come up with a modern analogy to this, that communicates the atrocity level…It’s almost like 10,000 women, in advanced stages of the Ebola virus (or perhaps AIDS, since they would survive longer), were persuaded by their city leadership, to whole-heartedly travel to a different city and aggressively seduce and offer “sex for free” to all the married men, deliberately concealing or lying about the fact that they had Ebola/AIDS, and for the specific intent of inflicting the men (and their wives and families) with this horrible and quickly fatal disease. And, this decision was supported by their husbands and fathers (“in front of” the children), and the trip funded and planned by their government. And this all done against a people who were no threat to them now, and were actually friends/allies of a related group.



Why would anyone “defend” the “values” of such a sub-culture? It was not just a matter of their “own consensual sexual preferences and ethics”—this was aggressive, deliberately destructive malice toward others/outsiders, and self-destructive abuse of the precious gift of feminine allure…







So, what did the judgment on Midian ‘look like’ in Numbers 31?



Now let’s go back through the judgment/battle scene and see the details in it:



Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire. And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.



And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. “And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. “And you shall purify for yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats’ hair, and all articles of wood.”





Let’s make some observations first, from the text and the historical background:



1. Only 12,000 Israelite men go into the battle. That would imply that the Midianite force would have been estimated in the 8,000-15,000 person range. This, of course, means that we are not dealing with all of the Midianites, but only just this small tribal sub-group (i.e., its not a genocide thing). [Other Midianites will be attacking Israel in force within 30 years, as will Moab.]



This number would fit roughly with the estimated number of wives/mothers/daughters that would have participated in the sexual warfare on Israel (in the 8,000-15,000 person range), providing further support for our understanding of the scale of this action.



2. The Moabites are NOT included in this judgment—only the specific Midianites behind the atrocity (the 5 chieftains):



“The daughters of Moab had also taken part in the seduction; but they had done so at the instigation of the Midianites, and not of their own accord, and therefore the Midianites only were to atone for the wickedness.” [KD:1:225]



“Moabites tried by every means to be rid of Israel. Midian, on the other hand, had no cause for undertaking hostilities against Israel, and yet they not only joined the Moabites, but outdid them in their hatred against Israel. [Ginzberg]



3. The combat theater is NOT Moab, but Midian—their “encampments” and the towns there were temporarily occupying.



4. The number of women who would have been executed for their personal involvement in the deceptive and malicious treachery might be estimated from the number of girls spared. If the 32k girls were spared, we might estimate the number of boys at around 20k (infant mortality for males is 30% higher than for females), and with a 3-4 kids/family ratio, we get around 12,000 sets of parents. This 12,000 number accords well with the troop count and estimates of the number of women who approached the Israelites in the deception of Baal Peor. [And this also confronts us with the sobering fact that the number of adult Israelites who died in the plague of judgment—24,000—roughly matches the number of adult Midianite deaths, under this scenario. Israel did not get off ‘scot free’ from this horror…they were the subject of God’s judgment first.]



5. The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually a small number. According to the distribution of them, the 12,000 ‘soldiers’ received 16,000 (half of them), making an average of between 1 and 2 per household, depending on the soliders-per-household ratio. The other half (16,000) was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would get one. This would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this time are still nomadic peoples without any material base from which to live. More than one commentator has noted that this seems to be a surprise act of mercy, and it is interesting to note that Whiston, in a footnote on his 18th-century translation of Josephus’ account of this passage [Antiq, VII] argues that this sparing of the little girls is a surprise of mercy, given the practical demands of this type of combat in the OT/ANE (which we will discuss later):



“The slaughter of all the Midianite women that had prostituted themselves to the lewd Israelites, and the preservation of those that had not been guilty therein; the last of which were no fewer than thirty-two thousand…and both by the particular command of God, are highly remarkable, and shew that, even in nations otherwise for their wickedness doomed to destruction, the innocent were sometimes providentially taken care of, and delivered from that destruction”



Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had adequate economic means, they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from hostile-but-conquered foreign cities), but at this early stage this was quite an impossibility. They had no need for “slaves,” nor means to support them at this time.



6. The only way they could absorb the 32,000 girls was that 24,000 (mostly) adults citizens of Israel had died as a result of the treachery of their mothers at Peor earlier. This created some ‘capacity’ for absorbing innocents into Israel for the moment.




7. The remaining people were the non-combat age boys (sub-12?). Philo asserted that the Israelites actually spared the little boys, although the Hebrew text doesn’t provide much support for this (Moses 1.57):



“And they led away a perfectly incalculable number of prisoners, of whom they chose to slay all the full-grown men and women, the men because they had set the example of wicked counsels and actions, and the women because they had beguiled the youth of the Hebrews, becoming the causes to them of incontinence and impiety, and at the last of death; but they pardoned all the young male children and all the virgins, their tender age procuring them forgiveness” (311)]



According to the text, though, the number of these boys present at this scene would have been very minimal. According to 31.9, they had already killed “every male (kal zkr—not the normal word for adult male, or ‘man’)”. This would mean that the reference in verse 17 to kill kal zkr (‘every male’) “among the children” would likely be a reference to any boys who had somehow ‘hidden’ or been unnoticed among the group of captive children. Given the general statement of verse 9, this would imply that this would have likely been a very small number of boys left.





I have discussed the situation, ethics, and unfortunate realities of children victims (in this case the boys) in ancient warfare in the preceding pieces on the Canaanites (qamorite.html) and on the Amalekites (rbutcher1.html), so I won’t repeat those arguments and supporting documentation here. But let me point out again that:


1.The Midianite parents would have been legally/ethically responsible for this situation falling upon their children—NOT the Israelites;
2.This situation was forced upon the Israelites by the unprovoked treachery of the Midianites;
3.No ANE land-based and/or blood-succession-based civilization had means for assimilating foreign males into them, except as severely constrained/debilitated slaves (e.g., “prisoners were often blinded en masse. When brought to their captors’ land, they could still perform certain tasks, such as carrying water from a well or canal with a bucket and a rope” [OT:DLAM:237]);
4.All ANE civilizations recognized the military threat/risk that male slaves (even children) of foreign stock represented. Even the case in which David ‘served’ the Philistines, the Philistine leaders were sensitive to the issue—that David might ‘turn on his Philistine masters’ in the heat of battle (1 Sam 29);
5.There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237])
6.There would be no practical way to transport these boys to their ‘next of kin’ down south, and there was no guarantee that they would take them in anyway. Even the Kenites, generally loyal to Israel, were divided in policy, as Heber the Kenite’s alliance with Syria in Judges indicates. “The propensity of pastoral nomads for raids, or razzias, both against one another and against sedentists is well attested in the near eastern historical record.” [OT:CANE:251]
7.As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced--by the Midianite atrocity--into the difficult situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the ancient world, was killing them very quickly (similar to ‘euthanasia’, perhaps, which was also considered the ‘most humane’ way of doing this, according to ANE testimony—see the discussion/documentation in the case of the Amalekites, at rbutcher1.html)







Summary:


1.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with lewd ‘tests for virginity’
2.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with ‘sex slaves’ or even slavery in the sense of New World Slavery
3.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with a religious war against the Midianites, “because they worshipped a different god than Israel”
4.The Midianites were a tribal league of generally nomadic peoples, with a wide variation in orientation, ethics, and practices.
5.They were known to engage in kidnapping and international slave trading, as well as raiding and pillage of sedentary peoples/villages.
6.The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites
7.After the Mesopotamian diviner/sorcerer/prophet Balaam fails to curse Israel, he nevertheless advises the Midianite leadership on how to overcome Israel—by a sexual deception of a massive scale.
8.Moab transports women into the area en masse, and Midian moves into the territory east of Shittim, to begin this initiative. Some 6,000-12,000 married women aggressively offer sex to the Israelite men (most of whom are married), and after having sex/adultery, convince them to participate in further acts (involving both sex and disloyalty to the Lord).
9.Israel ‘falls for it’, and likely makes a ‘covenant’ with a Canaanite fertility god of vegetation (Baal Peor), and are judged by God (at least 24,000 Israelites die of a plague, most of which are males)
10.The Moabite and Midianite women retreat out of the area, having successfully used their sex as a weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support, and encouragement from their husbands, fathers, and civic leaders).
11.For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites) and eliminate them.
12.The Israelite force of 12,000 men travel east/southeast to where the Midianite sub-group is camping, and engage in combat. (They are NOT instructed to hunt “all the Midianites in the world down and kill them”—just this group that did the treachery at Baal Peor.) They kill almost all of the males in this battle, but return to the Israelite camp with the herds and property of the Midianites, as well as with the women and (mostly girl) children.
13.Moses is shocked to find out that they spared the very women who used the sex-weapon against them, and even brought these women back to the Israelite camp! He orders them to execute the women, who had been involved in the treachery (but only the Midianite women—the Moabite women are spared), and any remaining males among the children.
14.The remaining young girls—with an average age of 5 years—were spared and distributed throughout the people, into families. They would eventually be assimilated into Israel families, but from this moment on, they would care for them, feed them, train them, etc. for family life in Palestine.
15.The 32,000 young girls could be assimilated into Israel, largely because of the death of the 24,000 adult Israelites.
16.The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children (especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.
17.The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping with realities of the time.





This action/atrocity by the Midianites is an intensely sordid and depressing tale, of greater scale than even that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of greater anti-Hebrew malice and calculating treachery than even that of the Amalekites…The removal of this exact sub-culture (without impacting the Moabites or the rest of the Midianites—for good or ill), while mercifully sparing a very large number of innocent young girls, yet without sparing the guilty Israelites, seems neither cruel nor unfair nor unwarranted, given the horrendously dehumanizing character of this crime, and given the unavoidable consequences of conflict upon children in the ancient world…

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 04:59 AM
Christian leaders really need to be honest when they evangelise. They should lay out all the facts about their religion to show what Moses did

1. Killing all the Egyptian First born
2. Killing 3000 of fellow Israelites for worshipping the golden calf
3. Killing all the Midianite men, women and children because the Midianite women seduced the Israelite soldiers

Even though these acts MAY have been justified, it is the responsibility of pastors to address them. Innocence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - because the accusations levelled are so grevious.

It is true however, that God ordered Moses to avenge the Midianites by making war upon them. But no where does it say that God commanded the murder of the women and children.

Moses took it further when he ordered the execution of the women and male children. Here Moses went beyond the letter of God's command, and became guilty of mass murder. He became a war criminal.

The fact that they spared the female children shows that this was not a Nephilim situation. And if they spared the female children, then Moses should have spared the male children also because both were equally innocent.

L67
06-11-2014, 07:01 AM
Christian leaders really need to be honest when they evangelise. They should lay out all the facts about their religion to show what Moses did

1. Killing all the Egyptian First born
2. Killing 3000 of fellow Israelites for worshipping the golden calf
3. Killing all the Midianite men, women and children because the Midianite women seduced the Israelite soldiers

Even though these acts MAY have been justified, it is the responsibility of pastors to address them. Innocence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - because the accusations levelled are so grevious.

It is true however, that God ordered Moses to avenge the Midianites by making war upon them. But no where does it say that God commanded the murder of the women and children.

Moses took it further when he ordered the execution of the women and male children. Here Moses went beyond the letter of God's command, and became guilty of mass murder. He became a war criminal.

The fact that they spared the female children shows that this was not a Nephilim situation. And if they spared the female children, then Moses should have spared the male children also because both were equally innocent.

Craig,

You are assuming Moses was a real person. There is not one shred of evidence for Moses or the Exodus in the Bible. And there is evidence he was made up. His birth story is nothing more than a copy from the legend of Sargon of Akkad. He was a real king that lived way before Moses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

Just compare the birth stories.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/2300sargon1.asp

1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkadê am I,

2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;

3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.

4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu [Euphrates],

5. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.

6. She placed me in a basket of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,

7. She cast me upon the rivers which did not overflow me.

8. The river carried me, it brought me to Akki, the irrigator.

9. Akki, the irrigator, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out,

10. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son brought me up;

Now look at the birth story of Moses

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."

Just look at the similarities.

Mother had a baby in secret.
Due circumstances the baby had to be put away.
A basket was made out of bulrushes and sealed with tar.
The baby was put into the basket and left adrift on the river.
The baby was discovered by the person who became his foster parent.

This is no coincidence because the Bible contains many other myths.

Rose
06-11-2014, 08:31 AM
Christian leaders really need to be honest when they evangelise. They should lay out all the facts about their religion to show what Moses did

1. Killing all the Egyptian First born
2. Killing 3000 of fellow Israelites for worshipping the golden calf
3. Killing all the Midianite men, women and children because the Midianite women seduced the Israelite soldiers

Even though these acts MAY have been justified, it is the responsibility of pastors to address them. Innocence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - because the accusations levelled are so grevious.

It is true however, that God ordered Moses to avenge the Midianites by making war upon them. But no where does it say that God commanded the murder of the women and children.

Moses took it further when he ordered the execution of the women and male children. Here Moses went beyond the letter of God's command, and became guilty of mass murder. He became a war criminal.

The fact that they spared the female children shows that this was not a Nephilim situation. And if they spared the female children, then Moses should have spared the male children also because both were equally innocent.

Hello Craig,

There are many places in the Bible where god explicitly commands the murder of women, and children. One of those places that is particularly egregious is found in Deuteronomy, where not only are the Hebrews commanded to utterly destroy everyone, but they are told to show them NO MERCY! :eek: On top of that, they are gloating over the fact that they well receive property and goods taken from others, which they did not earn!




Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.



Once again, the only conclusion that can be drawn from such immoral behavior as is presented in the Bible, is that it is totally and completely the work of primitive men, who saw no problem with murdering people from other tribes.

Here is another verse where the Biblegod explicitly commands the murder of all life!



Josh.10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

CWH
06-11-2014, 10:18 AM
I just read an article - http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

Not everything in our universe is equal. For example, all people are beneath God, who is acknowledged as the highest. So our universe definitely has a hierarchy. It is NOT just a flat democracy. If God had appointed women as leaders of men, then so be it, but if he appointed men as leaders then so be it.

What Rose seeks to establish here is that -

1. the roles allotted to women by God - the roles of helper and mother - are inferior

2. the roles allotted to men by God - the roles of protector, provider and leader - are superior

3. both genders should have freedom to adopt the same roles.

4. the Bible regards women in general as of less value than men


I think that in this situation, the first thing to do is to establish the central roles that the Bible alots to women and to men. A deeper understanding of these roles is necessary.
Hi Craig,

Let me clarify what Rose seeks to establish

What Rose seeks to establish here is that -

1. the roles allotted to women by God - the roles of helper and mother - are inferior: Wrong both are of equal status.
But the roles are not inferior; is the role of mother inferior to the role of father? Obviously No. The father acts as a protector to the family whereas the mother acts as a carer to the family, both are equally important in their roles.

2. the roles allotted to men by God - the roles of protector, provider and leader. = are superior : Wrong.
Men has more muscle mass and thus physically stronger and emotionally stronger and thus wise God gave men the role to protect, provide and lead. These attributes are necessary to ensure that the family survives under threat from wild animals, human enemies and the harsh environments. Some evil men abuse the roles given by God and thus becomes a tyrant and bully over the women they are supposed to protect, provide and lead.

3. both genders should have freedom to adopt the same roles.: Impossible
Unfortunately, that is impossible and the physical attributes of men and women are different,, They are supposed to used these attributes to work together mutually using their different roles to achieve a common goal such as for the family. God would have made man with breast if He wanted to so that they help to breast feed the babies but He did not do so but rather made another human being in the form of a female to help the man with what he lacks so that both worked together harmoniously and equally in their roles for a common goal.

4. the Bible regards women in general as of less value than men: No
The Bible regards women based on equal pay for equal work, equal value base on economics of supply and demand. If there is high demand for high value work such as constructions, soldiers, laborers, farmers then their value will be higher compared to a lesser demand work for housewives, babysitter and maid which are more suitable for women based on their physical attributes.


God Bless. :pray:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 10:36 AM
Hello Craig,

There are many places in the Bible where god explicitly commands the murder of women, and children. One of those places that is particularly egregious is found in Deuteronomy, where not only are the Hebrews commanded to utterly destroy everyone, but they are told to show them NO MERCY! On top of that, they are gloating over the fact that they well receive property and goods taken from others, which they did not earn!



1.Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
2.Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.



Once again, the only conclusion that can be drawn from such immoral behavior as is presented in the Bible, is that it is totally and completely the work of primitive men, who saw no problem with murdering people from other tribes.

Here is another verse where the Biblegod explicitly commands the murder of all life!


1.Josh.10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.


Hi Rose

I totally agree that God commanded utter destruction of these tribes without any mercy. But this instance differs from the Midianite instance in that here God is dealling with Nephilim - and using Israel as an instrument to destroy them.

Also here, God is commanding the utter destruction, whilst with the Midianites He did not command their utter destruction, but Moses stepped over the line. It makes a massive difference, because only God has the right to take life, otherwise it is murder.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 10:39 AM
Craig,

You are assuming Moses was a real person. There is not one shred of evidence for Moses or the Exodus in the Bible. And there is evidence he was made up. His birth story is nothing more than a copy from the legend of Sargon of Akkad. He was a real king that lived way before Moses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

Just compare the birth stories.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/2300sargon1.asp




Hi L,

Whether he was made up or not, the point is that the acts attributed to himself and God should be consistent with Holiness and goodness. I personally think he was not made up.

Craig

CWH
06-11-2014, 11:03 AM
Christian leaders really need to be honest when they evangelise. They should lay out all the facts about their religion to show what Moses did

1. Killing all the Egyptian First born
2. Killing 3000 of fellow Israelites for worshipping the golden calf
3. Killing all the Midianite men, women and children because the Midianite women seduced the Israelite soldiers

Even though these acts MAY have been justified, it is the responsibility of pastors to address them. Innocence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - because the accusations levelled are so grevious.

It is true however, that God ordered Moses to avenge the Midianites by making war upon them. But no where does it say that God commanded the murder of the women and children.

Moses took it further when he ordered the execution of the women and male children. Here Moses went beyond the letter of God's command, and became guilty of mass murder. He became a war criminal.

The fact that they spared the female children shows that this was not a Nephilim situation. And if they spared the female children, then Moses should have spared the male children also because both were equally innocent.
Hi Craig,

I see the following 3 points in this way:

1. Killing all the Egyptian First born
This was to force the Egyptians to release the Hebrews whom they were very reluctant to let go i.e. hard hearted and also forcing some Hebrews were also reluctant to leave Egypt as the Egyptians would regard them for their bad luck. The sacrifice of the first born is not an issue as God can reincarnate those killed souls and make better ones.

2. Killing 3000 of fellow Israelites for worshipping the golden calf
They goes against the commandment and covenant which dictates death penalty for such deeds, God needs to maintain justice and integrity of the law and the covenant to whoever breaks them. As I said the killings is not an issue as God can reincarnate soul and make better ones.

3. Killing all the Midianite men, women and children because the Midianite women seduced the Israelite soldiers
Same as the law of the greater good comes into play so as to stop the Israelites soldiers from falling into sin and idolatory, If you read further into the chapters , they scammed the Midianite women to seduced the Israelites soldiers

God Bless. :pray:

CWH
06-11-2014, 11:34 AM
I found this article on the genocide against the Midianites

Thanks for the long article Craig,

Basically and in summary, God punishes the Moabites because:

1. they believe in horrible corrupted religion call Baal which sacrifice children burnt alive and the sexual religious perversion ... temple prostitutes, bestialiaty etc. if not it would have corrupted God"s people.

2. As revenge and for justice against the Moabites for killing the israelites likewise, taking their properties, wives children.

3. For taking lands that rightfully belongs to the Israelites.and thus the fruits and produce which the land bore rightfully belongs to the Israelites. Were the Israelites wrong to take back those things that rightfully belongs to them? or should they waste the properties and booties?

4. the Moabite women were made Jewish through rituals and were MARRIED to the Israelite soldiers thus there were no rapes. Most of the Moabite women were divorced after that as the Israelite soldiers need to go to war and might not make it back alive, The divorce was so that the Moabite women turned Jewish could legally marry other Jews thus achieving God's blessings to their generations.

5. Punishment for the incestuous generations in which the Moabites were descended from (Lots and his two daughters).

God Bless. :pray:

Rose
06-11-2014, 12:44 PM
Hi Rose

I totally agree that God commanded utter destruction of these tribes without any mercy. But this instance differs from the Midianite instance in that here God is dealling with Nephilim - and using Israel as an instrument to destroy them.

Hey Craig,

The problem with bringing the Nephelim into the picture is that according to the Bible, Noah and his family were the only ones left after the Flood ... there were no Nephelim. Besides that if there were such a thing as Nephelim, why did god allow them to exist in the first place? Their existence wasn't the fault of humans, it was the fault of god for creating them.

It's much easier understand the Bible, when you look at the whole biblical story as a mythical creation of humans. :D


Also here, God is commanding the utter destruction, whilst with the Midianites He did not command their utter destruction, but Moses stepped over the line. It makes a massive difference, because only God has the right to take life, otherwise it is murder.

You say that only god has the right to take life, but if god commands humans to murder other humans aren't those humans committing immoral acts? If you want to say that god can kill whoever he chooses, then he should do the killing, he should not have humans do his dirty work. That is immoral and WRONG!

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 03:12 PM
Hey Craig,

The problem with bringing the Nephelim into the picture is that according to the Bible, Noah and his family were the only ones left after the Flood ... there were no Nephelim. Besides that if there were such a thing as Nephelim, why did god allow them to exist in the first place? Their existence wasn't the fault of humans, it was the fault of god for creating them.

It's much easier understand the Bible, when you look at the whole biblical story as a mythical creation of humans.


The Nephilim of Abraham and Moses time were produced by a second wave of angelic interference. The first bunch of angels who acted in Noah's time were cast into Tartarus for 70 generations, so the second wave was not instigated by them. Rather it was instigated by some of their angelic colleagues who hadn't taken part in the first wave.

The existence of the Nephilim wasn't the fault of humans, and it wasn't the fault of God either - it was mainly the fault of the fallen angels. I thought that you would have known this.

God's acts in Joshua only make sense if the Nephilim were real.

Rose
06-11-2014, 04:20 PM
The Nephilim of Abraham and Moses time were produced by a second wave of angelic interference. The first bunch of angels who acted in Noah's time were cast into Tartarus for 70 generations, so the second wave was not instigated by them. Rather it was instigated by some of their angelic colleagues who hadn't taken part in the first wave.

The existence of the Nephilim wasn't the fault of humans, and it wasn't the fault of God either - it was mainly the fault of the fallen angels. I thought that you would have known this.

God's acts in Joshua only make sense if the Nephilim were real.

Hello Craig,

If you believe the biblical narrative and you believe the Nephilim were real, then it most certainly is the Biblegod's fault. God is supposed to be the creator of all things, and know the beginning from the end. If that is the case the angels are his creation and he knew they would fall and produce the Nephilim.

So, why aren't there any Nephilim around now?

Craig.Paardekooper
06-11-2014, 05:59 PM
Hello Craig,

If you believe the biblical narrative and you believe the Nephilim were real, then it most certainly is the Biblegod's fault. God is supposed to be the creator of all things, and know the beginning from the end. If that is the case the angels are his creation and he knew they would fall and produce the Nephilim.



the angels rebelled, God punished them for disobeying him. metaphysical speculation is unnecessary to comprehend such a simple story.

The idea that God can be blamed for everything that exists including the results of our freewill, is not logical because then our free will would not be free.

There! I have out paradoxed you.


So, why aren't there any Nephilim around now?

Should they be around now? And why?

They are not around now, only their skeletons remain, because they were exterminated not just in Israel, but across the entire globe.

Rose
06-11-2014, 07:20 PM
the angels rebelled, God punished them for disobeying him. metaphysical speculation is unnecessary to comprehend such a simple story.

The idea that God can be blamed for everything that exists including the results of our freewill, is not logical because then our free will would not be free.

There! I have out paradoxed you.

That's the problem with freewill, there is no real answer as to whether it exists or not. It is very difficult to believe in an omnipotent creator god who knows the beginning from the end and also believe that you have freewill. So the paradox remains ... :lol:




Should they be around now? And why?

They are not around now, only their skeletons remain, because they were exterminated not just in Israel, but across the entire globe.

Every so-called giant human skeleton that has ever been found has been a hoax! Besides that if god couldn't exterminate the Nephilim who else could?

sylvius
06-11-2014, 11:39 PM
The Nephilim of Abraham and Moses time were produced by a second wave of angelic interference. The first bunch of angels who acted in Noah's time were cast into Tartarus for 70 generations, so the second wave was not instigated by them. Rather it was instigated by some of their angelic colleagues who hadn't taken part in the first wave.

The existence of the Nephilim wasn't the fault of humans, and it wasn't the fault of God either - it was mainly the fault of the fallen angels. I thought that you would have known this.

God's acts in Joshua only make sense if the Nephilim were real.

Genesis 14:13 And the fugitive came:

Rashi:


According to its simple meaning, this was Og, who escaped from the battle, and that is what is referred to (in Deut. 3:11): “Only Og survived from the rest of the Rephaim.” And that is the meaning of “survived,” that Amraphel and his allies did not kill him when they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim [Midrash Tanchuma (Chukkath 25)]. The Midrash Gen. Rabbah [explains]: This is Og, who escaped from the Generation of the Flood, and this is the meaning of “from the rest of the Rephaim,” as it is said: (above 6:4): “The Nephilim were on the earth, etc.” And he [Og] intended that Abram should be killed and he would marry Sarah (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).

Og is said to have taken hold of the ark, like a drowning person who saves his life by catching hold of some driftwood.

Since Hebrew "teivah" , translated with ark, in fact means box, i.e. kind of container, and also word as written with letters. Og just knows about the (life-saving) outside.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-12-2014, 03:14 AM
That's the problem with freewill, there is no real answer as to whether it exists or not. It is very difficult to believe in an omnipotent creator god who knows the beginning from the end and also believe that you have freewill. So the paradox remains ...


The question of freewill is probably too far off-topic, and would derail this conversation. We were talking about why God killed the Canaanites. My proposition still stands - the Nephilim - because -

1. The Tribes of Canaan were specifically identified as descendants of the nephilim in the Bible
2. God had sought to eradicate the Nephilim prior to the flood

So there is a certain consistency to the whole story.

As regards skeletal evidence of the Nephilim, are you suggesting that every bone and every article has been conclusively disproved? Admittedly, it is difficult for a rationalist evolutionist atheist feminist like yourself to accept the evidence, but never-the-less if you look you will find it.

CWH
06-12-2014, 07:17 AM
Hey Craig,

The problem with bringing the Nephelim into the picture is that according to the Bible, Noah and his family were the only ones left after the Flood ... there were no Nephelim. Besides that if there were such a thing as Nephelim, why did god allow them to exist in the first place? Their existence wasn't the fault of humans, it was the fault of god for creating them.

It's much easier understand the Bible, when you look at the whole biblical story as a mythical creation of humans. :D
It is much easier to understand the Bible if you see God as a natural super intelligent and powerful force.


You say that only god has the right to take life, but if god commands humans to murder other humans aren't those humans committing immoral acts? If you want to say that god can kill whoever he chooses, then he should do the killing, he should not have humans do his dirty work. That is immoral and WRONG!
It is the same as saying the US government should not order its soldiers to war to murder fellow human beings in WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraqi war etc. The US government should do the dirty work itself. That is immoral and WRONG!.... yet all of us knows that the wars that US fought are moral and right. The simple reason is because the US government just cannot do it by itself and furthermore, there was unanimous support from its citizens to fight the wars for the free and better world....or do you think that the US government should defend the country by itself without the need of its soldiers and citizens if its enemies attack the US?

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-12-2014, 08:10 AM
That's the problem with freewill, there is no real answer as to whether it exists or not. It is very difficult to believe in an omnipotent creator god who knows the beginning from the end and also believe that you have freewill. So the paradox remains ... :lol:





Every so-called giant human skeleton that has ever been found has been a hoax! Besides that if god couldn't exterminate the Nephilim who else could?

If there is no free-will, humans will be like robots and will do whatever it is programmed to do....as simple as that.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-12-2014, 08:55 AM
The question of freewill is probably too far off-topic, and would derail this conversation. We were talking about why God killed the Canaanites. My proposition still stands - the Nephilim - because -

1. The Tribes of Canaan were specifically identified as descendants of the nephilim in the Bible
2. God had sought to eradicate the Nephilim prior to the flood

So there is a certain consistency to the whole story.

Hello Craig,

All we know from the Bible, is that the sons of Anak who lived in the land of Canaan were identified as nephilim (giants). The only other place that nephilim are mentioned is in Genesis 6, where they inhabited the land prior to the sons of god and the daughters of men having offspring, in neither place is it clear exactly who or what nephilim are. In Genesis 6 it speaks of god being angry with ALL flesh because it was corrupted, not specifically the nephilim. Neither does it say that the cause of the corruption was the nephilim.

No conclusions can be draw from the scant biblical evidence of nephilim, but what we do know from the Bible is that god caused a flood to destroy ALL flesh on the planet except for Noah, his family and the animals he gathered. The reason for this mass murder was on account of god's anger with the corruption of ALL the life he made. No specific mention is made of the nephilim causing the wickedness.

Gen.6:7 & 12 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them....12) And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


I know you have said that since you believe god created all life he has the right to destroy it, but it's an entirely different argument when god uses his human creations to murder other humans! The Bible has example after example of god commanding the Hebrews to murder every last man woman and child, or just murder all the men and non-virgin women so the men can keep the virgin girls for themselves. This is the most egregious form of immorality that can be imagined ... ordering your so-called chosen people to commit acts of murder, rape, and theft!

It is one thing for a creator to murder his own creation, and quite another to command people to do it for him!


As regards skeletal evidence of the Nephilim, are you suggesting that every bone and every article has been conclusively disproved? Admittedly, it is difficult for a rationalist evolutionist atheist feminist like yourself to accept the evidence, but never-the-less if you look you will find it.

First off, I'm not sure why you needed to use four descriptors to address me, but they all fit, so I will define how each one applies. :D

1. Rationalist: one who thinks in a rational manner.
2. Evolutionist: one who believes that current life forms have evolved from the very simple to the complex, through natural processes of selection and mutation.
3. Atheist: one who does not believe in any of the known gods of man.
4. Feminist: one who believes that women should have the same human rights as men.

In all my internet searching I have not come across one shred of evidence that holds up to scientific scrutiny. I would appreciate it if you could show me some solid evidence of the skeletal remains of giant beings you think are nephilim.

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose
06-12-2014, 09:26 AM
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63900#post63900)
Hey Craig,

It's much easier understand the Bible, when you look at the whole biblical story as a mythical creation of humans. :D

It is much easier to understand the Bible if you see God as a natural super intelligent and powerful force.

Mimicking what I say only makes you look ignorant. :p



It is the same as saying the US government should not order its soldiers to war to murder fellow human beings in WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraqi war etc. The US government should do the dirty work itself. That is immoral and WRONG!.... yet all of us knows that the wars that US fought are moral and right. The simple reason is because the US government just cannot do it by itself and furthermore, there was unanimous support from its citizens to fight the wars for the free and better world....or do you think that the US government should defend the country by itself without the need of its soldiers and citizens if its enemies attack the US?

God Bless.:pray:

Are you actually comparing governments which are made up of people to god?? Governments which are made up of people, order other people to do acts that are wrong and immoral all the time ... that in no way compares to the so-called creator god that you believe in, ordering his creation to murder, rape and steal. :eek:

How can you possibly say on one hand that the Biblegod is righteous and just, and then on the other hand compare him to the immoral actions of his lowly creations?? You make no sense. :dizzy:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-13-2014, 01:01 AM
I know you have said that since you believe god created all life he has the right to destroy it, but it's an entirely different argument when god uses his human creations to murder other humans! The Bible has example after example of god commanding the Hebrews to murder every last man woman and child, or just murder all the men and non-virgin women so the men can keep the virgin girls for themselves. This is the most egregious form of immorality that can be imagined ... ordering your so-called chosen people to commit acts of murder, rape, and theft!

It is one thing for a creator to murder his own creation, and quite another to command people to do it for him!


I agree. People learn to love one another, so when God's command overrides this, and He says "Kill all the Canaanites", this would be certain to traumatise those who carried it out. Because it would be like killing your own people.

The must have been a reason why God could not do the job himself.

Rose
06-13-2014, 07:29 AM
I agree. People learn to love one another, so when God's command overrides this, and He says "Kill all the Canaanites", this would be certain to traumatise those who carried it out. Because it would be like killing your own people.

The must have been a reason why God could not do the job himself.

Hello Craig

The only logical reason why the Biblegod couldn't do the job himself is because he doesn't exist! Just think, what other possible reason could there be for a so-called omnipotent creator god, to command his chosen created people to murder, rape and steal?? The very things that are listed in the Ten Commandments that the Biblegod supposedly gave to Moses, he orders his people to do. It's just makes no sense at all. :confused:

I would be interested to hear any possible reasons that you could come up with, as to why god was in need of humans to carry out his immoral "dirty deeds". It makes me think of the Rock Band AC/DC and their song Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap :lol:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efZrWN7sqc

Craig.Paardekooper
06-13-2014, 12:19 PM
The only logical reason why the Biblegod couldn't do the job himself is because he doesn't exist! Just think, what other possible reason could there be for a so-called omnipotent creator god, to command his chosen created people to murder, rape and steal?? The very things that are listed in the Ten Commandments that the Biblegod supposedly gave to Moses, he orders his people to do. It's just makes no sense at all.

I would be interested to hear any possible reasons that you could come up with, as to why god was in need of humans to carry out his immoral "dirty deeds". It makes me think of the Rock Band AC/DC and their song Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap




The only logical reason why the Biblegod couldn't do the job himself is because he doesn't exist!

RESPONSE : God did do some direct killing - The Flood, Sodom and , the Egyptian plagues, the Red Sea, including several plagues . So he did do a lot of direct killing.


Just think, what other possible reason could there be for a so-called omnipotent creator god, to command his chosen created people to murder, rape and steal?? The very things that are listed in the Ten Commandments that the Biblegod supposedly gave to Moses, he orders his people to do.

RESPONSE : It is not murder If God commanded it because He owns all life

RESPONSE : It is not theft if God commanded it because He own all property


I would be interested to hear any possible reasons that you could come up with, as to why god was in need of humans to carry out his immoral "dirty deeds".

RESPONSE : God did not need people to carry out the killing for Him, but He may have wanted us to do it for 2 possible reasons -

1. Human beings were atleast partly responsible for the Nephilim situation, so should help tidy up the mess

2. This was a chance for human beings to participate in the destruction of the nephilim - who had instigated the initial rebellion that led to the Flood, and the diminishment of our lifespans. So God gave us a chance to hit back.


A CONSISTENT PATTERN AND THEME CENTRAL TO THE BIBLE

Anyway, my entire justification for the genocide rests only upon the identification of the Canaanite tribes with the Fallen Angels and their offspring - that's why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's why he later commanded the destruction of Canaan.

Enoch's translation 3013 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Moses 1492 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Christ 30 A.D.

The Sons of God take human wives ---------------------------------- Eradication of the Nephs--------------------------------The Immaculate Conception


These are the dates provided by the Ussher chronology and they spell out this exact pattern - covering 70 generations. So It is obvious that the Exodus and Conquest were ALL ABOUT the clearing up of the Nephilim problem.

During this period our lifespan decreased from 1000 years to only 120 years. It decreased in an exponential fashion - ie a decay curve


If you disregard this, then you will NEVER be able to understand what the Bible is about, and you will never find any justification for Gods acts.

Rose
06-13-2014, 01:43 PM
RESPONSE : God did do some direct killing - The Flood, Sodom and , the Egyptian plagues, the Red Sea, including several plagues . So he did do a lot of direct killing.

Hi Craig,

Yes, I know ... the Biblegod did a lot of killing in the Old Testament, it's like one big blood bath!




RESPONSE : It is not murder If God commanded it because He owns all life

RESPONSE : It is not theft if God commanded it because He own all property

Even if god owns all life it does not change the fact that one human being is murdering another, or raping another, or stealing from another. Just imagine the damage that does to a persons psyche, and how hardened it makes their hearts.




RESPONSE : God did not need people to carry out the killing for Him, but He may have wanted us to do it for 2 possible reasons -

1. Human beings were at least partly responsible for the Nephilim situation, so should help tidy up the mess

2. This was a chance for human beings to participate in the destruction of the nephilim - who had instigated the initial rebellion that led to the Flood, and the diminishment of our lifespans. So God gave us a chance to hit back.

1. There can be no blame whatsoever directed at humans for the Nephilim, because they inhabited the land before the people were there.

2. Genesis 6 does not blame the Nephilim for the Biblegod's anger at the wickedness of man.

Gen.6:5-7 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Absolutely no good can come from commanding men to rape and murder women and children ... it is immoral and it is WRONG!


A CONSISTENT PATTERN AND THEME CENTRAL TO THE BIBLE

Anyway, my entire justification for the genocide rests only upon the identification of the Canaanite tribes with the Fallen Angels and their offspring - that's why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's why he later commanded the destruction of Canaan.

Enoch's translation 3013 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Moses 1492 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Christ 30 A.D.

The Sons of God take human wives ---------------------------------- Eradication of the Nephs--------------------------------The Immaculate Conception


These are the dates provided by the Ussher chronology and they spell out this exact pattern - covering 70 generations. So It is obvious that the Exodus and Conquest were ALL ABOUT the clearing up of the Nephilim problem.

During this period our lifespan decreased from 1000 years to only 120 years. It decreased in an exponential fashion - ie a decay curve


If you disregard this, then you will NEVER be able to understand what the Bible is about, and you will never find any justification for Gods acts.

I am surprised that the Biblegod's murderous and immoral ways are so easily justified in your mind, especially when your justification rests upon two obscure verses in the Bible, whose meanings are ambiguous at best. No one is sure exactly who or what the Nephilim were, and the Bible does not blame them for mans corruption, nor does it say they are fallen angels. You have woven an elaborate story in order to justify the murderous rampage of the Biblegod ... why? Isn't it obvious that there is a direct correlation between the ideas of primitive men and the actions of the Biblegod? What makes you think the Bible is true when it contains so many superstitious and barbaric ideas?

You are right, there will never be any justification for the heinous acts carried out by the Biblegod, or for his commanding the Hebrews to rape, murder and steal from surrounding societies. There is a reason why intelligent people condemn the horrendous acts of the Biblegod, and try to distance themselves as far as possible from them ... it's because they can see just how immoral those actions are. Doesn't it seem odd that modern man has a far higher moral standard then the Biblegod does?

I do appreciate your continuing to discuss these issues with me ... :signthankspin:

Kind regards,
Rose

CWH
06-13-2014, 08:53 PM
[QUOTE=Rose;63934]Hi Craig,

Yes, I know ... the Biblegod did a lot of killing in the Old Testament, it's like one big blood bath!
So is the history of Man with wars and disasters.....one big blood bath. That says so much about the theory of evolution - the survival of the fittest.


Even if god owns all life it does not change the fact that one human being is murdering another, or raping another, or stealing from another. Just imagine the damage that does to a persons psyche, and how hardened it makes their hearts.
Did the numerous wars that US fought damaged the person's psyche and hardened the hearts of Americans?
God has the right to destroy and amend and recreate; same as a car maker has the right to destroy its unworthy cars and repair cars and create new cars; what's the big deal?


1. There can be no blame whatsoever directed at humans for the Nephilim, because they inhabited the land before the people were there.
The nephilim were evil and had to be destroy; same as the Nazi regime had to be destroyed.


2. Genesis 6 does not blame the Nephilim for the Biblegod's anger at the wickedness of man.

Gen.6:5-7 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

The nephilims were already mixing with the men then and causing evil to bloom and therefore all had to be destroyed.


Absolutely no good can come from commanding men to rape and murder women and children ... it is immoral and it is WRONG!
Can I also say that no good can come from US with its military in its numerous wars of killing, murder, rape ....it is immoral and WRONG!


I am surprised that the Biblegod's murderous and immoral ways are so easily justified in your mind, especially when your justification rests upon two obscure verses in the Bible, whose meanings are ambiguous at best. No one is sure exactly who or what the Nephilim were, and the Bible does not blame them for mans corruption, nor does it say they are fallen angels. You have woven an elaborate story in order to justify the murderous rampage of the Biblegod ... why? Isn't it obvious that there is a direct correlation between the ideas of primitive men and the actions of the Biblegod? What makes you think the Bible is true when it contains so many superstitious and barbaric ideas?
I am surprised that people cannot see that killing is not entirely bad... Was the destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial japan bad? Is the killing of terrorists and its organizations bad? In other words, the destruction of Evil people are not bad as it will make a safer and better world.


You are right, there will never be any justification for the heinous acts carried out by the Biblegod, or for his commanding the Hebrews to rape, murder and steal from surrounding societies. There is a reason why intelligent people condemn the horrendous acts of the Biblegod, and try to distance themselves as far as possible from them ... it's because they can see just how immoral those actions are. Doesn't it seem odd that modern man has a far higher moral standard then the Biblegod does?
Doesn't it seems odd that man is so immoral with all the sexual perversions, adulteries, cruelties, fightings, killings, greed, murders, robberies, thefts, rapes etc. etc. that we see in this world? How moral are man compared to God? Where is the Love they neighbor as thyself? How nice the word can be if there are no sexual perversions, adulteries, cruelties, fightings, killings, greed, murders, robberies, thefts, rapes etc. etc.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-13-2014, 09:12 PM
Hello Craig

The only logical reason why the Biblegod couldn't do the job himself is because he doesn't exist! Just think, what other possible reason could there be for a so-called omnipotent creator god, to command his chosen created people to murder, rape and steal?? The very things that are listed in the Ten Commandments that the Biblegod supposedly gave to Moses, he orders his people to do. It's just makes no sense at all. :confused:

I would be interested to hear any possible reasons that you could come up with, as to why god was in need of humans to carry out his immoral "dirty deeds". It makes me think of the Rock Band AC/DC and their song Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap :lol:


It's the same as saying why the US government needs the US military to carry out its murderous military actions around the world? Why can't the US government did themselves? If the US government can do them by themselves then why need the citizens and the military? Same as saying why the boss needs his workers if he can do every job by himself? The reason is simple... because it needs own citizens to carry out the jobs. It makes no sense to say, get the Russians who are not its citizens to fight all the American's wars around the world. The US fought terrorists around the world for justice and revenge and to make this world a better safer place. No other country will want to fight for US for the killings of its innocent citizens in 9/11 and therefore the US had to do it themselves in order to claim justice and revenge. Same as God needs the Israelites, who were God's people to carry out its jobs to revenge and serve justice to the evil people who killed God's own people. If God ordered the killings, the full responsibility lies on Him and not on the Israelites. same as Hitler who ordered the Holocaust, the full responsibility lies on him not on the Germans. Same as a boss delegated someone to do a job, the full responsibility lies on the boss and not on the delegated worker.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-13-2014, 10:28 PM
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63934#post63934)
Hi Craig,

Yes, I know ... the Biblegod did a lot of killing in the Old Testament, it's like one big blood bath!

So is the history of Man with wars and disasters.....one big blood bath.

There you go again, bringing your Biblegod down to the level of man to try and justify his immoral actions! :lol:

CWH
06-14-2014, 12:38 AM
There you go again, bringing your Biblegod down to the level of man to try and justify his immoral actions! :lol:
In Isaiah, it was mentioned that "ye are gods" meaning there is not much difference between Man and God but we are the smaller gods. One day, Man will be able to do what God has done...create animals and plants, raised the dead, cure illnesses, create sun, planets stars etc. etc. Therefore, Man and God are in many ways the same knowing goiod and evil except that HIs ways and thoughts are higher than ours.

God Bless.:pray:

Gambini
06-14-2014, 09:30 AM
Hey Rose :yo:

You said ...

"That's the problem with freewill, there is no real answer as to whether it exists or not"

If you reject free will, then calling yourself a "freethinker" is an oxymoron. You can't think "freely" if all your thoughts are determined. And since you're a materialist (which is nuts btw), it follows that all your thoughts are determined by unguided chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't think, they react. So I'm not surprised you doubt that free will exists given your worldview. Any concept of mind that entails the idea of consciousness arising from parts is logically inconsistent with the ability for the mind to FREELY exercise its thoughts. In that scenario, whatever one offers as an explanation will ITSELF be the result of chemical reactions reacting by necessity. The only way free will can be a reality is if mind is the default state of being. Obviously something has to exist by default. The only way for free will to be real is if it simply exists and isn't held up be predetermining chemicals or parts. In that case, the mind is INHERENTLY volitional by its very nature.


You said God is still at fault for allowing volitional beings to be actualized when he knew certain members would rebel against the natural authority of God. The problem with your objection is it doesn't take into account the fact that God NECESSARILY has complete knowledge of all the hidden variables entailed in every act and the infinite chain reaction of events it will produce in future generations. So OBVIOUSLY the very fact that God allowed x to be actualized NECESSARILY means he has justifiable reasons for doing so. The very fact that God allowed volitional beings to be actualized whom he foreknew would turn reprobate means it will ultimately serve a GREATER GOOD in the end ...

If you ask me, a world wherein evil is defeated is GREATER than a world that has never experienced evil. God could have allowed wickedness to be actualized for a FINITE period (extremely finite when you look at it from an eternal perspective) through volitional beings for the very purpose of defeating evil (which is ultimately accomplished at the cross but is fully enforced at the final judgment). After all, the triumph of good over evil can only be actualized in reality if evil is allowed to be actualized through volitional beings (or foreknown reprobates). And even if you don't like this explanation, it LOGICALLY follows that God has complete foreknowledge of all the hidden variables entailed in every act. Therefore, we can conclude he has a justifiable reason for allowing foreknown reprobates to be actualized.


"It is difficult to believe in an omnipotent creator god who knows the beginning from the end and also believe that you have freewill"

It's also difficult believing hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas that can (given enough time) turn into people, but you have no problem believing that. The fact of the matter is that FOREKNOWLEDGE of an event does not equal CAUSATION of that event. It just means FOREKNOWLEDGE of the event (whether the event was freely played out or not). That's it. The fact that God foreknows all the CHOICES we will ever make does not take away from the fact that they are still genuine CHOICES being made by us at every step of the way. Likewise, the fact that God foreknows all the CHOICES that HE will ever make does not take away from the fact that they are still genuine CHOICES being made by HIM at every step of the way.


Btw, if you still insist on denying free will (which automatically strips you of the title "freethinker" BY DEFINITION), then what's the point of reasoning about anything at all??? Denying free will cripples your ability to even engage in any kind of reasoning or argumentation whatsoever. After all, in order to REASON about anything, you have to be able to CHOOSE between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that free will is an illusion (since free will is about as self evident as any other innate belief).


BINI

Rose
06-14-2014, 11:57 AM
Hey Rose :yo:

You said ...

"That's the problem with freewill, there is no real answer as to whether it exists or not"

If you reject free will, then calling yourself a "freethinker" is an oxymoron. You can't think "freely" if all your thoughts are determined. And since you're a materialist (which is nuts btw), it follows that all your thoughts are determined by unguided chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't think, they react. So I'm not surprised you doubt that free will exists given your worldview. Any concept of mind that entails the idea of consciousness arising from parts is logically inconsistent with the ability for the mind to FREELY exercise its thoughts. In that scenario, whatever one offers as an explanation will ITSELF be the result of chemical reactions reacting by necessity. The only way free will can be a reality is if mind is the default state of being. Obviously something has to exist by default. The only way for free will to be real is if it simply exists and isn't held up be predetermining chemicals or parts. In that case, the mind is INHERENTLY volitional by its very nature.

Hey Gambini,

I'm surprised you do not know the difference between the concept of "Freewill" and being a freethinker. A freethinker is someone who is open-minded, allowing themselves to be skeptical and question religious doctrines and dogmas. Besides that I am not denying or rejecting freewill, I just know better than to get into a discussion about it. :winking0071:



You said God is still at fault for allowing volitional beings to be actualized when he knew certain members would rebel against the natural authority of God. The problem with your objection is it doesn't take into account the fact that God NECESSARILY has complete knowledge of all the hidden variables entailed in every act and the infinite chain reaction of events it will produce in future generations. So OBVIOUSLY the very fact that God allowed x to be actualized NECESSARILY means he has justifiable reasons for doing so. The very fact that God allowed volitional beings to be actualized whom he foreknew would turn reprobate means it will ultimately serve a GREATER GOOD in the end ...

If you ask me, a world wherein evil is defeated is GREATER than a world that has never experienced evil. God could have allowed wickedness to be actualized for a FINITE period (extremely finite when you look at it from an eternal perspective) through volitional beings for the very purpose of defeating evil (which is ultimately accomplished at the cross but is fully enforced at the final judgment). After all, the triumph of good over evil can only be actualized in reality if evil is allowed to be actualized through volitional beings (or foreknown reprobates). And even if you don't like this explanation, it LOGICALLY follows that God has complete foreknowledge of all the hidden variables entailed in every act. Therefore, we can conclude he has a justifiable reason for allowing foreknown reprobates to be actualized.

For those who believe in a creator god, he is of necessity responsible for every action that takes place in the universe, therefore he is at fault. The only excuse any Christian can give for all the immoralities found in the Bible, is that the Biblegod must have a good reason for acting that way ... :lol:



"It is difficult to believe in an omnipotent creator god who knows the beginning from the end and also believe that you have freewill"

It's also difficult believing hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas that can (given enough time) turn into people, but you have no problem believing that. The fact of the matter is that FOREKNOWLEDGE of an event does not equal CAUSATION of that event. It just means FOREKNOWLEDGE of the event (whether the event was freely played out or not). That's it. The fact that God foreknows all the CHOICES we will ever make does not take away from the fact that they are still genuine CHOICES being made by us at every step of the way. Likewise, the fact that God foreknows all the CHOICES that HE will ever make does not take away from the fact that they are still genuine CHOICES being made by HIM at every step of the way.


Btw, if you still insist on denying free will (which automatically strips you of the title "freethinker" BY DEFINITION), then what's the point of reasoning about anything at all??? Denying free will cripples your ability to even engage in any kind of reasoning or argumentation whatsoever. After all, in order to REASON about anything, you have to be able to CHOOSE between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that free will is an illusion (since free will is about as self evident as any other innate belief).


BINI

I said it is difficult for someone who believes in god to believe in freewill, I don't believe in god, and I didn't affirm or deny my belief in freewill, nor have I even defined what freewill really means. You need to read what I say more carefully.

You said: "Likewise, the fact that God foreknows all the CHOICES that HE will ever make does not take away from the fact that they are still genuine CHOICES being made by HIM at every step of the way." That cannot possibly be true, since according to the Bible all of god's decrees were made from the beginning ... NOT at every step of the way. God is supposed to be unchanging and choices imply change.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-18-2014, 12:14 AM
1. There can be no blame whatsoever directed at humans for the Nephilim, because they inhabited the land before the people were there.


People CHOSE to follow the Nephilim, so they joined in the rebellion. The fact that Nephilim existed before people is besides the point.


2. Genesis 6 does not blame the Nephilim for the Biblegod's anger at the wickedness of man.


This is a bit like burying your head in the sand, since all the extra-biblical background materials indicate that the Nephilim were to blame.


Absolutely no good can come from commanding men to rape and murder women and children ... it is immoral and it is WRONG!


PS. No where in the Bible does God command any sexual union with Nephilim tribes, by rape, by consent or in any way. Please provide verses for such an outrageous statement.

In response to this, the goodness of their actions depends on -

1. if God really commanded it
2. if God had a good reason for commanding it

I ask you, Rose, if the Nephilim really were the progeny of fallen angels - "children of Satan" - anti-Christs - whose primary aim was the destruction of humanity - would God be justified in ordering their destruction?

Well, in your naturalistic universe where God does not even exist, then of course you HAVE to say No. But, once you allow that God exists, and that the Nephilim really were evil, then the answer might be different.



A CONSISTENT PATTERN AND THEME CENTRAL TO THE BIBLE

Anyway, my entire justification for the genocide rests only upon the identification of the Canaanite tribes with the Fallen Angels and their offspring - that's why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's why he later commanded the destruction of Canaan.

Enoch's translation 3013 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Moses 1492 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Christ 30 A.D.

The Sons of God take human wives ---------------------------------- Eradication of the Nephs--------------------------------The Immaculate Conception

Rose
06-18-2014, 08:07 AM
People CHOSE to follow the Nephilim, so they joined in the rebellion. The fact that Nephilim existed before people is besides the point.


This is a bit like burying your head in the sand, since all the extra-biblical background materials indicate that the Nephilim were to blame.

Hello Craig :yo:

Most of your statements about the Nephilim come from far reaching assumptions, picked from various extra-biblical material and constructed into your own idiosyncratic narrative. There is not enough information in the Bible to really make heads or tails of who or what the Nephilim were considered to be by the biblical authors.



Absolutely no good can come from commanding men to rape and murder women and children ... it is immoral and it is WRONG!

PS. No where in the Bible does God command any sexual union with Nephilim tribes, by rape, by consent or in any way. Please provide verses for such an outrageous statement.

There is nothing whatsoever outrageous about my statement of the commands made by the Biblegod, which directs the Hebrews on numerous occasions to murder all the inhabitants of particular communities, except the virgin women. If any of the Canaanite women that were taken for wives had Nephilim blood in them (as you believe), then the blame falls back on god.

As I have explained to Cheow, taking a woman captive for the purpose of marrying her is and egregious human rights violation and considered rape!


In response to this, the goodness of their actions depends on -

1. if God really commanded it
2. if God had a good reason for commanding it

I ask you, Rose, if the Nephilim really were the progeny of fallen angels - "children of Satan" - anti-Christs - whose primary aim was the destruction of humanity - would God be justified in ordering their destruction?

Well, in your naturalistic universe where God does not even exist, then of course you HAVE to say No. But, once you allow that God exists, and that the Nephilim really were evil, then the answer might be different.

Here is the conundrum that exists under your narrative of who the Nephilim are and what they did.

1. If as you believe, the Nephilim exist because god created them, then he also knew full well every action they would take.

2. If as you believe, god used the Flood to wipe out humanity and the Nephilim, he also knew that his plan wouldn't work, so it was a senseless loss of human life.

3. If as you believe, the Canaanite tribes were descendants of the Nephilim, then that identification was known and planned by god from the beginning.

The only conclusion I can come to from the points listed above, is that the Biblegod created humans and the Nephilim for the purpose of destroying them not once, nor twice, but many times! And I suppose since you believe god created everything anyway, he can do whatever he wants and say that it was justified ... there is no rhyme nor reason to any of it.




A CONSISTENT PATTERN AND THEME CENTRAL TO THE BIBLE

Anyway, my entire justification for the genocide rests only upon the identification of the Canaanite tribes with the Fallen Angels and their offspring - that's why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's why he later commanded the destruction of Canaan.

Enoch's translation 3013 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Moses 1492 B.C. ------------ 555555 days ------------ Christ 30 A.D.

The Sons of God take human wives ---------------------------------- Eradication of the Nephs--------------------------------The Immaculate Conception

As I said in my points above: if god exists as you believe, then he can do whatever he chooses and call it justified, but to the rational, intelligent mind it looks insane! Creating life on one hand, to merely destroy it on the other is an act of madness, but that is what you get when you try and make sense of the biblical narrative. :p

Kind regards,
Rose

David M
06-18-2014, 10:24 AM
Hello Rose



Most of your statements about the Nephilim come from far reaching assumptions, picked from various extra-biblical material and constructed into your own idiosyncratic narrative. There is not enough information in the Bible to really make heads or tails of who or what the Nephilim were considered to be by the biblical authors.
At least for this part, I agree with you. However, I am not going to let you get away with the next bit.



There is nothing whatsoever outrageous about my statement of the commands made by the Biblegod, which directs the Hebrews on numerous occasions to murder all the inhabitants of particular communities, except the virgin women. Please list the occasions and give the biblical references to where God gives those instructions.

I have argued with you before about the time Moses's gave the instruction to keep the 32,000 virgin after the officers in charge of the campaign fought against the Midianites, had not followed God's instruction but saved the women and children. When we see what God said to Moses, we find the text does not give us the specific detailed words. All the text tells us is; (Num 31:1) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites:
Whatever the specific instructions were, they had not been carried out according to the instruction given by Moses. We are told (v14) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. The reason Moses was wroth is seen by the question Moses asks; (v15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? This was not what Moses expected. It is obvious, Moses expected all the women and children to be killed. It was the decision of Moses to spare the virgins only and that was after they had already been spared. The original intention was that all the women and children had to be killed. Therefore, Moses's instruction was then to kill the women and children and save only the virgins.

If there are any examples that match what you say Rose, then please give the references and let us see how many there are.

All the best
David

Rose
06-18-2014, 01:33 PM
Hello Rose

At least for this part, I agree with you. However, I am not going to let you get away with the next bit.


Please list the occasions and give the biblical references to where God gives those instructions.

I have argued with you before about the time Moses's gave the instruction to keep the 32,000 virgin after the officers in charge of the campaign fought against the Midianites, had not followed God's instruction but saved the women and children. When we see what God said to Moses, we find the text does not give us the specific detailed words. All the text tells us is; (Num 31:1) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites:
Whatever the specific instructions were, they had not been carried out according to the instruction given by Moses. We are told (v14) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. The reason Moses was wroth is seen by the question Moses asks; (v15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? This was not what Moses expected. It is obvious, Moses expected all the women and children to be killed. It was the decision of Moses to spare the virgins only and that was after they had already been spared. The original intention was that all the women and children had to be killed. Therefore, Moses's instruction was then to kill the women and children and save only the virgins.

If there are any examples that match what you say Rose, then please give the references and let us see how many there are.

All the best
David

Hello David,

I will be more than happy to list examples for you. :)

I will first make a statement about the Biblegod's relationship to Moses and the Hebrew people, where he seems to have no problem with making his displeasure known if they go against his commands. For instance when Moses struck the rock in the wilderness, or when someone happened to touch the Ark of the Covenant. So at any time if Moses or the Hebrews did something out of line with gods wishes he could surely step in and let his displeasure be known.

Secondly, the law of god states that if a man sees a captured woman that he desires, he can keep her for a wife, so Moses was justified under the law to allow the men to take the virgins for themselves.


Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;



Here are some examples of people being murdered and women being taken for the purposes of rape, all allowable under the law of the Biblegod.



Judge 21:10-12 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan ...



Judge 21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch (chataph) you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

Numbers 31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.




Hope that helps,
Rose

David M
06-19-2014, 04:08 AM
Hello Rose


Hope that helps,
Rose
Thank you Rose. You have helped make my point. You have not shown numerous examples of where God told to kill and save the virgins only. You have given one further example to the one I already referred to, and at most, that would make two examples in which virgins were saved.

You may also like to make note that perhaps what Moses did when he instructed the virgins to be kept, the people in the second example (found in Judges 21) may have used as a precedent. When you read the text, you find there is no mention of God giving the instruction; (Judges 21:10) And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

I have not twisted words, I have read the text straight as it is.


The fact is; you exaggerated the facts by saying "numerous examples", and so far there are two examples where virgins were kept and in none of those examples is God seen to give the instruction. Another case of people doing what they considered was right in their own eyes. We note at the very end of the Book of Judges at the end of the chapter in which you have quoted this example, it says (Judges 21:25) In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

When will you start getting your facts about the Bible correct?


All the best
David

L67
06-19-2014, 04:54 AM
You may also like to make note that perhaps what Moses did when he instructed the virgins to be kept, the people in the second example (found in Judges 21) may have used as a precedent. When you read the text, you find there is no mention of God giving the instruction; (Judges 21:10) And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

I have not twisted words, I have read the text straight as it is.

Hello David,

You didn't twist words but you didn't do your due diligence. If you do back the previous chapter Judges 20, it was God who give the command to kill the children of Benjamin.

Judges 20:18 18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up first.

And the men of Israel asked the Lord what to do about the children of Benjamin. Here is what the Lord said.

Judges 20:23 23 (And the children of Israel went up and wept before the Lord until even, and asked counsel of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the Lord said, Go up against him.)

And they asked the Lord yet again what to do with the children of Benjamin. Judges 20:28 28 And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days,) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into thine hand.

God ordered Israel to slaughter the children of Benjamin. And then He ALLOWED them to keep the virgins as was permissible under His law. God is ultimately responsible. Period. God can give the command to kill, so if he didn't approve of the virgins being taken he could have spoke up. His silence condones it.

And as far as Moses we see the same thing again. God commanded the slaughter of innocent women and children and allowed the men to take only the virgins.

Numbers 31 1-2 31 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.


God ordered the slaughter and his followers did what was permissible under His law.



The fact is; you exaggerated the facts by saying "numerous examples", and so far there are two examples where virgins were kept and in none of those examples is God seen to give the instruction. Another case of people doing what they considered was right in their own eyes. We note at the very end of the Book of Judges at the end of the chapter in which you have quoted this example, it says (Judges 21:25) In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

When will you start getting your facts about the Bible correct?

Wrong! God is the one who commanded the killing and his silence condones the keeping of virgins under His law. The fact that there is even two examples of this filth is enough to make a rational person sick.


It is you who has your facts concerning the Bible wrong.

Take care

Craig.Paardekooper
06-19-2014, 05:39 AM
Hi L67,

the example you just gave is an example from silence. You are saying that God is responsible because He kept silent !! Your logic seems to be saying that God never commanded them not to take virgins, so God is responsible.

In other words, you might be viewed as putting words into God's mouth.

However, I would argue that if God did not explicitly command it, then He did not command it, and it was presumptious of the congregation to extrapolate God's command to including genocide of the Benjaminites and forced marriage of their virgins. The Hebrews got carried away.

I read the chapters of Judges from chapter 19 to chapter 21 where it describes the incident.

A group of Benjaminites from the city of Gibeah raped and killed a Levites concubine. The Levite then appealed to the whole of Israel for justice. The Israelites asked the Benjaminites to surrender those who had committed the crime, but instead the Benjaminites mobilized a huge army against Israel. So here the Benjaminites are the aggressors. The Benjaminites started slaughtering the Israelites 22, 000 in one day. The ISraelites really did not want to fight against the Benjaminites - but God told them to do so - for the sake of Justice. Amother 18,000 Israelites were slaughtered. IN the third battle Israel defeated the Benjaminites.

However, here the ISraelites went a lot further than God's command to fight against them - the Israelites put all the twons of Benjamin to the sword, killing the animals and everything else they found..

After wards, when the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead failed to come to assembly, the Israelites attacked Jabesh Gilead killing all the men, women and children, but sparing the virgins, whom they handed over to the Benjaminites as a peace offering.

It seems obvious that all this barbarity and craziness was carried out quite independently of the commands of God. . We can only attribute to God what God commands, and he did not command any of this.

Rose
06-19-2014, 09:28 AM
Hi Rose,

the example you just gave is an example from silence. You are saying that God is responsible because He kept silent !! Your logic seems to be saying that God never commanded them not to take virgins, so God is responsible.

In other words, you might be viewed as putting words into God's mouth.

However, I would argue that if God did not explicitly command it, then He did not command it, period, and it was presumptious of the congregation to extrapolate God's command to including genocide of the Benjaminites and forced marriage of their virgins.


I see your point though, that God could have stopped atrocities by speaking up or intervening, rather than letting the Hebrews exercise their freewill. Once again we are back to the issue of freewill.

Hi Craig :yo:

No, I am not arguing from a position of silence. As I just said in a post to David, the laws that the Hebrews lived by were given to Moses by god. One of those laws, found in Deut. 21 allows Hebrew men to capture women and take them as wives! Can you imagine a law like that being written into our Constitution! This law effectively justified every incident of men taking captured women whenever they lusted after them. How despicable is that?



Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;



As for the incident of the Benjaminites, it's quite an interesting story if you read the whole narrative starting in Judges 19-21. It begins with the Levite who gives his concubine to a group of men from the tribe of Benjamin to rape and torture all night long, until she dies on the steps of her house in the morning. The Levite then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends it to all tribes of Israel. The ultimate decision for the crime committed by the men of Benjamin, is to wipe out the whole tribe of Benjamin.



Judge20:18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first.



Instead of wiping out the whole tribe of Benjamin, 600 men are allowed to live, and of course those men needed wives, so they went to Jabesh-Gilead and slaughtered all the inhabitants except for 400 virgins, but they still need 200 more virgins, so they go to Shiloh and capture 200 virgin girls who are dancing at a festival to the Lord.

Bottom line: The Biblegod was by no means a silent bystander, rather it was his command to the Hebrews to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin that led to the mass slaughter and rape of Jabesh-Gilead and Shiloh ... not to mention all the innocent people that just happened to be members of the tribe of Benjamin.

The whole Judges narrative is one egregious humans rights violation after another, in which the Biblegod was a very active participant. God was not silent, and I was not putting words in his mouth.



I have to admit Rose, that I am really glad that you are fighting as hard as you can against the Bible God. By destroying illusion, you leave behind a clearer vision.

Thank you :signthankspin: Over four and a half years ago when I started my journey of discovery, I was in a similar place that you are now. Richard and I began asking the tough questions about all the problems with the biblical narrative, and we were committed to keeping our integrity while finding the answers. My intent was never to toss out the Biblegod, but the conclusions I came to left me no choice.

When I began comparing the gods of other cultures to the Biblegod their similarities were astounding, also the patriarchal mindset of other societies was a direct reflection of how Hebrew men thought. Another huge influence in my decision to declare the Biblegod a construct of the male mind, was the extreme gender bias, and human rights violations that permeate the entire Bible. There was no way I could reconcile the atrocious behavior of the primitive men of the Bible, with a caring, loving god.

Of course, you too will have to decide for yourself if you are able to keep your integrity, and at the same time reconcile the gender bias and human rights violations portrayed in the Bible as being commanded by god. As you know, Richard and I could not.

Good luck on your journey,
Rose

CWH
06-19-2014, 09:43 AM
Hello David,

I will be more than happy to list examples for you. :)

I will first make a statement about the Biblegod's relationship to Moses and the Hebrew people, where he seems to have no problem with making his displeasure known if they go against his commands. For instance when Moses struck the rock in the wilderness, or when someone happened to touch the Ark of the Covenant. So at any time if Moses or the Hebrews did something out of line with gods wishes he could surely step in and let his displeasure be known.
Just like secular law, whoever breaks the law must be punished according to the law so as to maintain integrity and justice. If murder carries a death penalty then death penalty shall be given. If death penalty is decreed for going against God's command then it is right that the meted punishment be given.


Secondly, the law of god states that if a man sees a captured woman that he desires, he can keep her for a wife, so Moses was justified under the law to allow the men to take the virgins for themselves.


Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
The keyword here is "thy wife". They were to be married.


Here are some examples of people being murdered and women being taken for the purposes of rape, all allowable under the law of the Biblegod.


Judge 21:10-12 [I]And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan ...


[I]Judge 21:20 [I]Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch (chataph) you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
Bride kidnapping was a tradition in those days.... or should you stop their rights to freedom to practice their traditions. In Bride kidnapping practice as is currently practiced in some cultures especially in Krgystan is not considered as rape as the bride and bridegroom will be married.


Numbers 31:15-18 [I]And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

They were married and thus not considered as rape. It was a tradition in the Middle East in those days that men were allowed to marry the captive women.... or should people stop their rights and freedom to practice their culture? The women and males who hath laid with men were killed because of their sexual evils which they practiced in their worship to Baal or Molesch.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-19-2014, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Rose;64069]Hi Craig :yo:

No, I am not arguing from a position of silence. As I just said in a post to David, the laws that the Hebrews lived by were given to Moses by god. One of those laws, found in Deut. 21 allows Hebrew men to capture women and take them as wives! Can you imagine a law like that being written into our Constitution! This law effectively justified every incident of men taking captured women whenever they lusted after them. How despicable is that?
What if the US constitution allows wife swapping and adultery, is that also despicable?
Taking women captives as wives were a tradition in the Middle East, is that wrong? Bride kidnapping which falls under the category of marriage by wife capture is an interesting tradition:

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




Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
The keyword is to be "thy wife". there was no rape.




As for the incident of the Benjaminites, it's quite an interesting story if you read the whole narrative starting in Judges 19-21. It begins with the Levite who gives his concubine to a group of men from the tribe of Benjamin to rape and torture all night long, until she dies on the steps of her house in the morning. The Levite then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends it to all tribes of Israel. The ultimate decision for the crime committed by the men of Benjamin, is to wipe out the whole tribe of Benjamin.
God has not intended the tribe of Benjamin to be wiped out but to be punished which is why the tribe of Benjamin survived and remained as one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The concubine may be not of good clean character which was why she was punished....we do not know but anyway she was martyred so that the evil men were punished.... a moral act for the greater good. Perhaps God will pardon her for being a martr and reincarnate her soul.



Judge20:18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first.



Instead of wiping out the whole tribe of Benjamin, 600 men are allowed to live, and of course those men needed wives, so they went to Jabesh-Gilead and slaughtered all the inhabitants except for 400 virgins, but they still need 200 more virgins, so they go to Shiloh and capture 200 virgin girls who are dancing at a festival to the Lord.
Wife kidnapping was an acceptable practice and tradition then..... do you want to stop their right and freedom to practice their tradition?


Bottom line: The Biblegod was by no means a silent bystander, rather it was his command to the Hebrews to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin that led to the mass slaughter and rape of Jabesh-Gilead and Shiloh ... not to mention all the innocent people that just happened to be members of the tribe of Benjamin.

The whole Judges narrative is one egregious humans rights violation after another, in which the Biblegod was a very active participant. God was not silent, and I was not putting words in his mouth.
You are putting words into God's mouth because the tribe of Benjamin was not wiped out which means either God forgave the tribe of Benjamin or that he did not really intend to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin.


Thank you :signthankspin: Over four and a half years ago when I started my journey of discovery, I was in a similar place that you are now. Richard and I began asking the tough questions about all the problems with the biblical narrative, and we were committed to keeping our integrity while finding the answers. My intent was never to toss out the Biblegod, but the conclusions I came to left me no choice.

When I began comparing the gods of other cultures to the Biblegod their similarities were astounding, also the patriarchal mindset of other societies was a direct reflection of how Hebrew men thought. Another huge influence in my decision to declare the Biblegod a construct of the male mind, was the extreme gender bias, and human rights violations that permeate the entire Bible. There was no way I could reconcile the atrocious behavior of the primitive men of the Bible, with a caring, loving god.
My suggestion to you Rose and RAM is to see God as a super intelligent and powerful force and your eyes will be opened even wider:eek::eek:....Believe me and God is not the atrocious God of the construct of the male mind as what you think He is.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-19-2014, 10:14 AM
Hello Rose

Thank you Rose. You have helped make my point. You have not shown numerous examples of where God told to kill and save the virgins only. You have given one further example to the one I already referred to, and at most, that would make two examples in which virgins were saved.

You may also like to make note that perhaps what Moses did when he instructed the virgins to be kept, the people in the second example (found in Judges 21) may have used as a precedent. When you read the text, you find there is no mention of God giving the instruction; (Judges 21:10) And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

I have not twisted words, I have read the text straight as it is.

Hello David

My, oh my! How deep does the callousness of your heart go when it comes to justifying biblical atrocities commanded by its god?

You may not have twisted words, but you were very selective in the words you quoted to make it appear that god was not involved when he most certainly was.

Judges 20:18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first.




The fact is; you exaggerated the facts by saying "numerous examples", and so far there are two examples where virgins were kept and in none of those examples is God seen to give the instruction. Another case of people doing what they considered was right in their own eyes. We note at the very end of the Book of Judges at the end of the chapter in which you have quoted this example, it says (Judges 21:25) In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

When will you start getting your facts about the Bible correct?


All the best
David

My facts about the Bible comes directly from it. The law given by god in Deut.21:10-12 explicitly gives the Hebrew men the right to take any captive woman they desire, so in the three examples I gave the Hebrew men had god-given approval to take and keep the virgins for themselves.

I don't need to try and justify the horrendous human rights violations and the extreme gender bias in the Bible like you do. You try and worm out of holding god responsible by saying Moses and the Hebrews did that stuff on their own. Is your god impotent? Its like a parent blaming their small children for actions that are clearly their responsibility.

You quoted Judges 21:25 like it means that god was not involved. It means no such thing. Like I said to Craig, the Biblegod was an active participant in the decisions and lawmaking of the Israelites, regardless of the fact that Israel had no king. Even when there were kings in Israel, they constantly disobeyed gods laws and commands and did what was right in their own eyes. Why do you think they were always in trouble with god for one thing or another from the get-go?

Take care,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-19-2014, 10:47 AM
I read the chapters of Judges from chapter 19 to chapter 21 where it describes the incident.

A group of Benjaminites from the city of Gibeah raped and killed a Levites concubine. The Levite then appealed to the whole of Israel for justice. The Israelites asked the Benjaminites to surrender those who had committed the crime, but instead the Benjaminites mobilized a huge army against Israel. So here the Benjaminites are the aggressors.

The Benjaminites started slaughtering the Israelites 22, 000 in one day. The ISraelites really did not want to fight against the Benjaminites - and asked God to allow them not to - but God said that they should do so ( for the sake of Justice). Another 18,000 Israelites were slaughtered the next day. In the third battle Israel defeated the Benjaminites.

However, here the ISraelites went a lot further than God's command to fight against them - the Israelites put all the towns of Benjamin to the sword, killing the animals and everything else they found..

After wards, when the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead failed to come to assembly, the Israelites attacked Jabesh Gilead killing all the men, women and children, but sparing the virgins, whom they handed over to the Benjaminites as a peace offering.

It seems obvious that all this barbarity and craziness was carried out quite independently of the commands of God. . We can only attribute to God what God commands, and he did not command any of this.

So in conclusion - regarding this incident, I would say that God never commanded the barbarity.


What is also interesting here is the similarity between the Sodom and Gomorrah incident and what happened to the concubine in Judges 19. THe wording is almost the same for both incidents. The inhabitants of Gibeah had somehow become corrupted. We know that Benjamin was supposed to have driven out one of the 7 tribes of Canaanite NEphilim, the Jebusites - but instead chose to live alongside them. As a result they seem to have become like Sodom and Gomorrah in some ways.

Rose
06-19-2014, 11:03 AM
What if the US constitution allows wife swapping and adultery, is that also despicable?

Taking women captives as wives were a tradition in the Middle East, is that wrong? Bride kidnapping which falls under the category of marriage by wife capture is an interesting tradition:

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

Wife swapping and adultery cannot be compared to taking women captive (against their will), for the purpose of marrying them. Capturing a woman and forcing her to marry, is an egregious violation of her human rights! :eek: Are you really so ignorant that you don't know that?

What does it matter if bride kidnapping is a tradition or not? Human sacrifice was also a tradition in many cultures, does that mean it was right? You act like your intellect is on par with the primitive men who wrote the Bible.



Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;

The keyword is to be "thy wife". there was no rape.

No, the key words are "If a man CAPTURES a beautiful woman whom he DESIRES he can keep her for a wife." Notice, nowhere is the woman given a choice in the matter, therefore what is happening to her is against her will, she is forced to marry the man who captures her. This is an egregious violation of a persons human rights!




God has not intended the tribe of Benjamin to be wiped out but to be punished which is why the tribe of Benjamin survived and remained as one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The concubine may be not of good clean character which was why she was punished....we do not know but anyway she was martyred so that the evil men were punished.... a moral act for the greater good. Perhaps God will pardon her for being a martr and reincarnate her soul.

The callousness of your heart is beyond belief. I am at a loss for words to express my disgust at what you just said. :eek:



Wife kidnapping was an acceptable practice and tradition then..... do you want to stop their right and freedom to practice their tradition?

Where is your intellect? People are not allowed to practice their traditions if those traditions violate the human rights of others! If a religion called for the sacrifice of all virgin girls would you think those people should be allowed to freely practice their religion? Come on Cheow, use your brain!





My suggestion to you Rose and RAM is to see God as a super intelligent and powerful force and your eyes will be opened even wider:eek::eek:....Believe me and God is not the atrocious God of the construct of the male mind as what you think He is.

God Bless.:pray:

If god is not an atrocious moral monster, then why does the Bible portray him that way?

Take care,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-19-2014, 11:50 AM
Hi Rose,

You are forgetting that in respect of the incidents in Judges 19 to 21, God did not command the atrocities. Initially, Israel approached the Benjaminites seeking the surrender of the rapists. Instead, the Benjaminites mobilized their army - and 40,000 Israelites perished.

Then GOd told the Israelites to fight the Benjaminites - they were fighting for justice.

Afterwards though, the Israelites got carried away and destroyed everything in all the benjaminite towns - which God did not command. Then to make peace with the Benjaminites, the Israelites attacked a city who had deserted them during the civil war, and took 400 girls as virgins, and handed them over to the Benjaminites as a peace offering.. God did not command any of this either.

I would prefer it if we were more careful to ascribe to God only what God commanded or did, and avoided ascribing to God what the ISraelites did in their own madness.

Rose
06-19-2014, 11:58 AM
I read the chapters of Judges from chapter 19 to chapter 21 where it describes the incident.

A group of Benjaminites from the city of Gibeah raped and killed a Levites concubine. The Levite then appealed to the whole of Israel for justice. The Israelites asked the Benjaminites to surrender those who had committed the crime, but instead the Benjaminites mobilized a huge army against Israel. So here the Benjaminites are the aggressors.

The Benjaminites started slaughtering the Israelites 22, 000 in one day. The ISraelites really did not want to fight against the Benjaminites - and asked God to allow them not to - but God said that they should do so ( for the sake of Justice). Another 18,000 Israelites were slaughtered the next day. In the third battle Israel defeated the Benjaminites.

However, here the ISraelites went a lot further than God's command to fight against them - the Israelites put all the towns of Benjamin to the sword, killing the animals and everything else they found..

After wards, when the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead failed to come to assembly, the Israelites attacked Jabesh Gilead killing all the men, women and children, but sparing the virgins, whom they handed over to the Benjaminites as a peace offering.

It seems obvious that all this barbarity and craziness was carried out quite independently of the commands of God. . We can only attribute to God what God commands, and he did not command any of this.

So in conclusion - regarding this incident, I would say that God never commanded the barbarity.

Hello Craig

God may not have specifically commanded the "barbarity", but he sure allowed it to happen and was involved in it from the beginning. The whole incident started when god allowed a Levite to give his concubine to a group of men who at first demanded that the Levite give to them the man that was under his roof. Instead of giving over the man, the Levite offered his daughter and concubine to the men to do with as they wished. At any point god could have intervened and saved the life of the concubine and condemned the Levite, but he allowed the incident to happen and escalate to the point where he was involved in telling them who to send into battle first.

This is similar to what Lot did when he offered up his daughters to the men of Sodom, instead of the men that they demanded ... and in the New Testament Lot is called righteous!



Judges 19:22-26 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

Gen.19:5-8 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.



Notice that in both Judges and Genesis, the value of the women was far less than the men. In both cases the men were told to do to the women whatever seemed good in their eyes, this is totally on par with the law in Deut.21 that gives men the right to capture women they lust after and desire and do with as they please. Sad to say this is the nature of the Biblegod, he is proving over and over again that he is truly a moral monster!

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose
06-19-2014, 12:18 PM
Hi Rose,

You are forgetting that in respect of the incidents in Judges 19 to 21, God did not command the atrocities. Initially, Israel approached the Benjaminites seeking the surrender of the rapists. Instead, the Benjaminites mobilized their army - and 40,000 Israelites perished.

Then GOd told the Israelites to fight the Benjaminites - they were fighting for justice.

Afterwards though, the Israelites got carried away and destroyed everything in all the benjaminite towns - which God did not command. Then to make peace with the Benjaminites, the Israelites attacked a city who had deserted them during the civil war, and took 400 girls as virgins, and handed them over to the Benjaminites as a peace offering.. God did not command any of this either.

I would prefer it if we were more careful to ascribe to God only what God commanded or did, and avoided ascribing to God what the ISraelites did in their own madness.

In your desire to vindicate the Biblegod of any wrongdoing, you must remember that everything in the Bible begins and ends with him. The laws that allowed the Hebrews to own slaves, treat women like property, and kill people who believed in a different god are all ascribed to the Biblegod.

According to the Bible god intervened in peoples lives many times and for all sorts of reasons, yet at other times he allowed atrocities to take place with nary a word of rebuke ... like in the case of the Levite giving over his concubine to be raped to death.

So, if the Biblegod is real as you believe, he is guilty for giving immoral laws and for allowing his people to commit atrocities in his name.

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-20-2014, 04:42 AM
IN Deuteronomy 20 v 10-18 God differentiates between the treatment of 7 nations of the Land, and the treatment of all nations outside the Land. He commands that the nations within the Land be totally annihilated - where as those outside the land you can make peace with.

He also commanded that for the 7 nations of the land, everything be destroyed including everything that breathed - animals, and destruction of all objects - not allowed to take any plunder.

Why the difference in treatment for anyone outside of the 7 named tribes??

L67
06-20-2014, 05:43 AM
IN Deuteronomy 20 v 10-18 God differentiates between the treatment of 7 nations of the Land, and the treatment of all nations outside the Land. He commands that the nations within the Land be totally annihilated - where as those outside the land you can make peace with.

He also commanded that for the 7 nations of the land, everything be destroyed including everything that breathed - animals, and destruction of all objects - not allowed to take any plunder.

Why the difference in treatment for anyone outside of the 7 named tribes??

Craig,

Who knows why the difference in treatment? The Bible portrays god as a one dimensional stooge. Many verses say he is not all knowing or not all powerful. Yahweh is short for "Yahweh Sabaoth" and it means he who musters armies. Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.

The Bible portrays Yahweh as "just" a man throughout the Bible. The only thing the biblegod can think of is violence to solve problems. That is totally a human mentality. If you are all powerful, then you have infinite possibilities and the only solution is violence and more violence? Ironically, in Deuteronomy 20:4 we read this: 4 For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.. Is God really doing the fighting or is he just with them in spirit? If he is all powerful and with them in spirit nothing should be impossible. But Judges 1:19 tells us he has limited powers. And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Chariots of iron stopped God in his tracks? Is he all powerful or just a man? Sure sounds like a man fighting with his army to me.

Everywhere you turn god has man like qualities.

Also, you said that god never explicitly commanded the barbarity in Judges 19-21, and were all to willing to give god a pass.

What about the verses you quoted? Deut. 20:13-14 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Right there he commanded the slaughter of every male and the taking of women and children. The Bible is filled with filth like this from beginning to end. The Bible tells stories about a bronze age tribal war god(man). The stories about God are on par with the mass murderers throughout history. If you tally up all the slaughtering god has done it is in excess of 25 million +. Rather pathetic for a loving creator god.

Rose
06-20-2014, 09:13 AM
I’m reading a book by Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of our Nature, where he presents evidence for his claim that violence has declined over the course of history. In one section he quoted an excerpt from Homers Illiad and Odyssey where Agamemnon is explaining to King Menelaus his plans for war:



"Menelaus, my soft-hearted brother, why are you so concerned for these men? Did the Trojans treat you as handsomely when they stayed in your palace? No we are not going to leave a single one of them alive, down to the babies in their mother wombs – not even they must live. The whole people must be wiped out of existence, and none be left to think of them and shed a tear."


Do these words set in the time period of 1200 BCE and written around 800 BCE not sound familiar? Let me share a passage from the Bible written in the same ancient time period.



Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:



Here is another quote that comes from a book called The Rape of Troy written by literary scholar Jonathan Gottschall, where he discusses how archaic Greek wars were carried out.



"Fast ships with shallow drafts are rowed onto beaches and seaside communities are sacked before neighbors can lend defensive support. The men are usually killed, livestock and other portable wealth are plundered, and women are carried off to live among the victors and perform sexual and menial labors."



Again, do not these words bring to mind passages in the Bible? For example:



Num.31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

Deut. 20:13-14 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.



My desire is that people will open their eyes and see the similarities between biblical history and other cultures of the same time period, showing that the contents of the Bible are much more of a reflection of primitive human thinking than of divine inspiration. Tremendous harm has come from religious books like the Bible that trap people in a primitive mindset that was inspired by superstitious thought about things they didn't understand. Men who adhere to biblical doctrines still believe that societies should be structured to have men in positions of ruler-ship over women, giving them no say over their own bodies and denying them equal human rights. This is the type of mentality that leads to the human rights violations that are so abundant in the Bible.


Rose

CWH
06-21-2014, 10:03 AM
Craig,

Who knows why the difference in treatment? The Bible portrays god as a one dimensional stooge. Many verses say he is not all knowing or not all powerful. Yahweh is short for "Yahweh Sabaoth" and it means he who musters armies. Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.

The Bible portrays Yahweh as "just" a man throughout the Bible. The only thing the biblegod can think of is violence to solve problems. That is totally a human mentality. If you are all powerful, then you have infinite possibilities and the only solution is violence and more violence? Ironically, in Deuteronomy 20:4 we read this: 4 For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.. Is God really doing the fighting or is he just with them in spirit? If he is all powerful and with them in spirit nothing should be impossible. But Judges 1:19 tells us he has limited powers. And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Chariots of iron stopped God in his tracks? Is he all powerful or just a man? Sure sounds like a man fighting with his army to me.
The main killings were done by the Israelites and not by God; God played a supportive role, if not why need the israelites? Yes, God is powerful and could have easily wipe out those chariots of iron but the Israelites could not do it means that God did not want to support the Israelites against the inhabitants of the valley. Same as if US did not support South Vietnam in the Vietnam war means the South Vietnamese will fail in their fight against the North Vietnamese.


Everywhere you turn god has man like qualities.
Yes, You are absolutely correct. Remember God made man in His image. In Isaiah. it was stated of men, "I say ye are gods, you are the sons of the Most High". Therefore, obviously God is like man and man is like god.


Also, you said that god never explicitly commanded the barbarity in Judges 19-21, and were all to willing to give god a pass.

What about the verses you quoted? Deut. 20:13-14 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Right there he commanded the slaughter of every male and the taking of women and children. The Bible is filled with filth like this from beginning to end. The Bible tells stories about a bronze age tribal war god(man). The stories about God are on par with the mass murderers throughout history. If you tally up all the slaughtering god has done it is in excess of 25 million +. Rather pathetic for a loving creator god.

Since man is like god and God is like man and knowing good and evil, we would expect men to kill millions of men as well in people such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao..... this is equally pathetic. The history of men is also filled with filth from the beginning to the end....Shame, Shame. The only difference is God did it for good against evil, if note this world will be a horrible place to live if evil triumphed over good.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-21-2014, 10:23 AM
I’m reading a book by Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of our Nature, where he presents evidence for his claim that violence has declined over the course of history. In one section he quoted an excerpt from Homers Illiad and Odyssey where Agamemnon is explaining to King Menelaus his plans for war:



"Menelaus, my soft-hearted brother, why are you so concerned for these men? Did the Trojans treat you as handsomely when they stayed in your palace? No we are not going to leave a single one of them alive, down to the babies in their mother wombs – not even they must live. The whole people must be wiped out of existence, and none be left to think of them and shed a tear."


Do these words set in the time period of 1200 BCE and written around 800 BCE not sound familiar? Let me share a passage from the Bible written in the same ancient time period.



Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:



Here is another quote that comes from a book called The Rape of Troy written by literary scholar Jonathan Gottschall, where he discusses how archaic Greek wars were carried out.



"Fast ships with shallow drafts are rowed onto beaches and seaside communities are sacked before neighbors can lend defensive support. The men are usually killed, livestock and other portable wealth are plundered, and women are carried off to live among the victors and perform sexual and menial labors."


Again, do not these words bring to mind passages in the Bible? For example:

Num.31:17 [I]Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

Deut. 20:13-14 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
Is it the same with humans? The evil Nazis did the same with the Jews in the Holocaust when they did not even spare babies and they confisticated their properties and rape the captive women of the land. So is God as evil as the Nazi? No because God did for the good against evil; this was also the main reason why Nazi Germany lost the War. I believe God has a hand in WW2 to ensure that good triumphed over evil. In al the bible stories, God did not encourage the Israelites to rape the virgin women captives but to marry them.



My desire is that people will open their eyes and see the similarities between biblical history and other cultures of the same time period, showing that the contents of the Bible are much more of a reflection of primitive human thinking than of divine inspiration. Tremendous harm has come from religious books like the Bible that trap people in a primitive mindset that was inspired by superstitious thought about things they didn't understand. Men who adhere to biblical doctrines still believe that societies should be structured to have men in positions of ruler-ship over women, giving them no say over their own bodies and denying them equal human rights. This is the type of mentality that leads to the human rights violations that are so abundant in the Bible.
My desire is that people open their eyes Big Big and see God from the super intelligent and powerful force point of view and you will understand ALOT of the miracles cited in the Bible and why God did what He did. The contents of the Bible is like a history book in which it describes how a super intelligent force guide men in its development from the beginning into an age of utopia by overcoming evil against good. The ultimate victory are those who managed to enter into a utopian world known as the Kingdom of Heaven by doing the will of God.


God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-21-2014, 11:29 AM
Is it the same with humans? The evil Nazis did the same with the Jews in the Holocaust when they did not even spare babies and they confisticated their properties and rape the captive women of the land. So is God as evil as the Nazi? No because God did for the good against evil; this was also the main reason why Nazi Germany lost the War. I believe God has a hand in WW2 to ensure that good triumphed over evil. In al the bible stories, God did not encourage the Israelites to rape the virgin women captives but to marry them.


The Bible says god gave a law that allowed the Hebrew men to violate the human rights of women, by capturing any woman they desired and forcing her to marry them! That is a shameful and disgusting law that legalizes rape!

Shame on you Cheow, for trying to justify rape through forced marriage. :nono:


My desire is that people open their eyes Big Big and see God from the super intelligent and powerful force point of view and you will understand ALOT of the miracles cited in the Bible and why God did what He did. The contents of the Bible is like a history book in which it describes how a super intelligent force guide men in its development from the beginning into an age of utopia by overcoming evil against good. The ultimate victory are those who managed to enter into a utopian world known as the Kingdom of Heaven by doing the will of God.


God Bless.:pray:

Yes, the Bible is a history book that documents the fact that primitive men were very gender biased and thought nothing of violating the basic human rights of women ... consequently the god they created reflected those exact characteristics. :mad:

CWH
06-21-2014, 11:59 AM
Wife swapping and adultery cannot be compared to taking women captive (against their will), for the purpose of marrying them. Capturing a woman and forcing her to marry, is an egregious violation of her human rights! :eek: Are you really so ignorant that you don't know that?
You don't understand tradition; why do people still carry on the tradition of Christmas and New Year? because they want to maintain and keep the traditions alive! Same based on those tradition of bride kidnapping and women war captives, the women will willingly married the men in order to survive and carry on the traditions. That was the main reason why the women captives did not resist the and married the Israelite men. It's a freedom of their choice and a human right that they chose to get married to the Israelite whether base don tradition or not rather than commit suicide or fight against it.


What does it matter if bride kidnapping is a tradition or not? Human sacrifice was also a tradition in many cultures, does that mean it was right? You act like your intellect is on par with the primitive men who wrote the Bible.
What does it matter if humans willingly sacrifice to die together for their masters or emperors as evidenced in the tombs of the Pharoahs and Chinese emperors? It's their choice and human right to do what they think is right based on tradition, belief, moral and whatever.


No, the key words are "If a man CAPTURES a beautiful woman whom he DESIRES he can keep her for a wife." Notice, nowhere is the woman given a choice in the matter, therefore what is happening to her is against her will, she is forced to marry the man who captures her. This is an egregious violation of a persons human rights!
There was no violation of human rights as they willingly married the israelites in order to carry on their traditions based on the duties of captive women. This will ensure that they genes were passed on. the key word is "If a man captures a beautiful woman whom he desires he can keep her for a WIFE.". What for ?keep her as a wife" if the intention is to rape?


The callousness of your heart is beyond belief. I am at a loss for words to express my disgust at what you just said.

Where is your intellect? People are not allowed to practice their traditions if those traditions violate the human rights of others! If a religion called for the sacrifice of all virgin girls would you think those people should be allowed to freely practice their religion? Come on Cheow, use your brain!
Where is your intellect on human rights to freedom of choice. If you believe that it is human rights to marry homosexuals, wife swapping, adultery then why not if people willingly sacrifice (and exercising their rights of freedom) to their beloved masters based on their religion same as Jesus exercising His human rights to do what He believes by sacrificing His life on the cross to save millions of souls. Is that wrong?


If god is not an atrocious moral monster, then why does the Bible portray him that way?
It is due to your fallacious thinking. Same as some people think that US is a monster terrorist fighting muslims around the world.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-21-2014, 12:05 PM
The Bible says god gave a law that allowed the Hebrew men to violate the human rights of women, by capturing any woman they desired and forcing her to marry them! That is a shameful and disgusting law that legalizes rape!

Shame on you Cheow, for trying to justify rape through forced marriage. :nono:



Yes, the Bible is a history book that documents the fact that primitive men were very gender biased and thought nothing of violating the basic human rights of women ... consequently the god they created reflected those exact characteristics. :mad:

There is no rape as they were married. Based on secular law definition:Rape is forced sex outside marriage.

The Bible is a history book documenting the how good eventually triumphed over evil leading to human utopia on earth with the help of a super-intelligent and powerful force call God.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-21-2014, 02:54 PM
There is no rape as they were married. Based on secular law definition:Rape is forced sex outside marriage.

The Bible is a history book documenting the how good eventually triumphed over evil leading to human utopia on earth with the help of a super-intelligent and powerful force call God.

God Bless.:pray:

Shame on you Cheow for your willful lies concerning rape. :nono: Rape is forced sex! It has nothing to do with marriage. Many marriages are forced upon unwilling girls, moreover just because a person is married doesn't mean they give up control of their own bodies.

I am saddened and amazed at the depth of your callousness concerning the violation of human rights experience by so many women. It is because of the beliefs of men like you that women's human rights have been denied for so long. :mad:

Rose
06-21-2014, 03:25 PM
You don't understand tradition; why do people still carry on the tradition of Christmas and New Year? because they want to maintain and keep the traditions alive! Same based on those tradition of bride kidnapping and women war captives, the women will willingly married the men in order to survive and carry on the traditions. That was the main reason why the women captives did not resist the and married the Israelite men. It's a freedom of their choice and a human right that they chose to get married to the Israelite whether base don tradition or not rather than commit suicide or fight against it.

Come on Cheow, you can't be that ignorant! No human being in their right mind would willingly choose to marry the man who just slaughtered their entire family! :eek: Besides that the women were CAPTIVES, which means they are being held against their will and they have NO choice in the matter.

I am not talking about choices that people willingly make, I am talking about the biblical laws that give men control over women to do with as they choose. Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it right! Where is your brain??



What does it matter if humans willingly sacrifice to die together for their masters or emperors as evidenced in the tombs of the Pharoahs and Chinese emperors? It's their choice and human right to do what they think is right based on tradition, belief, moral and whatever.

I am NOT talking about things that consenting adults make free choices about!



There was no violation of human rights as they willingly married the israelites in order to carry on their traditions based on the duties of captive women. This will ensure that they genes were passed on. the key word is "If a man captures a beautiful woman whom he desires he can keep her for a WIFE.". What for ?keep her as a wife" if the intention is to rape?

What you said is oxymoronic! The meaning of the word CAPTIVE means you are held against your will. The biblical law in Deut. 20: is a gross human rights violation, because it allows the man to capture and take any woman he desires, and force her to marry him.

Once again the callousness of your heart is guiding your thinking. If a man captures and forces a woman to marry him against her will ... that is called RAPE!


Where is your intellect on human rights to freedom of choice. If you believe that it is human rights to marry homosexuals, wife swapping, adultery then why not if people willingly sacrifice (and exercising their rights of freedom) to their beloved masters based on their religion same as Jesus exercising His human rights to do what He believes by sacrificing His life on the cross to save millions of souls. Is that wrong?


It is due to your fallacious thinking. Same as some people think that US is a monster terrorist fighting muslims around the world.

God Bless.:pray:

Your brain must also be calloused along with your heart for you to not understand what I am talking about. I believe all consenting adults should have freedom of choice, as long as it does not violate the human rights of others. Why do you keep bringing up the idea of people doing things of their own free choice? That is NOT what I am talking about!

I am talking about the gross human rights violations found in the Bible that give men complete control over a woman's body! That is WRONG!

Gambini
06-22-2014, 09:38 AM
Hey Rose ...

You said "No human being in their right mind would willingly choose to marry the man who just slaughtered their entire family". The problem with your assertion is that you're not considering the CIRCUMSTANCES those women would have been under. How do you know they would have objected to being taken as wives given the following ...


1) They were essentially prisoners of war. So an Israelite who took a female captive for his wife would actually be LIBERATING her as a prisoner of war.

2) They would be given an opportunity to have FREE children and start a new family (which would mean everything to a female captive in the ancient near east).


EVERY moral judgment necessitates that the surrounding CIRCUMSTANCES be taken into account. Given these two points, your assertion that the female captives would have objected to being taken as wives doesn't seem realistic. And if they didn't object to being taken as wives, then there was no rape.


Btw, you are already on record as saying you do NOT affirm that we have the ability to make free choices INDEPENDENT of any causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by necessity. You said you neither affirm free will nor deny it. Hence, you don't affirm it. And this alone CRUMBLES your entire moral foundation. Here's why ...

You are a disciple of Richard's moral theory, which as far as I know, you guys are the only nontheists to hold to it. According to Richard, this "objective" moral theory of his is rooted in *REASON*. This is where your problem kicks in, Rose. If you do not affirm that we have the ability to make free choices INDEPENDENT of any causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by necessity, then THERE IS NO REASONING in your worldview. This is because the ability to reason NECESSARILY requires one to be able to freely choose between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Hence, your entire moral foundation CRUMBLES without free will, which is inconsistent under materialism. Hence, there's no point for anyone to even engage any of your moral criticisms of the bible because you're left without an OBJECTIVE standard of morality ...

So to sum up ...


No free will = No reason

No reason = No objective standard to ground Richard's moral theory


I am Gambini and I assure you that the hebrew alphabet is the key to unlocking the mysteries behind the private life of plants (and also of ant colonies).

Rose
06-22-2014, 11:46 AM
Hey Rose ...

You said "No human being in their right mind would willingly choose to marry the man who just slaughtered their entire family". The problem with your assertion is that you're not considering the CIRCUMSTANCES those women would have been under. How do you know they would have objected to being taken as wives given the following ...


1) They were essentially prisoners of war. So an Israelite who took a female captive for his wife would actually be LIBERATING her as a prisoner of war.

2) They would be given an opportunity to have FREE children and start a new family (which would mean everything to a female captive in the ancient near east).


EVERY moral judgment necessitates that the surrounding CIRCUMSTANCES be taken into account. Given these two points, your assertion that the female captives would have objected to being taken as wives doesn't seem realistic. And if they didn't object to being taken as wives, then there was no rape.

Hello Gambini

First off let's start with some basic facts:

1. If you are at all familiar with ancient literature (including the Bible) you will know that people back in biblical times shared the same feelings of love, attachment, compassion, empathy, pain and sorrow as we do today (just read the Song of Solomon).

2. Knowing that human feelings were the same then as now, I as a woman can assume that many of the women of biblical times would feel the same as I would in a similar situation.

3. Obviously you are ignorant of the feelings of women who have been raped and had their families killed, which is currently happening in some African countries like the D.R.Congo. Your statements to try and justify the barbaric laws of the Bible are calloused and hard hearted, showing a lack of compassion and empathy.

I think you are the one who is being totally unrealistic by reducing the feelings of a woman who has just had her family slaughtered, and is now being taken captive against her will ... to being given the opportunity to have "Free" children and start a new life! That is pathetic and disgusting. Your defense and justification of the horrendous behavior of the Israelite's truly shows your callousness and lack of compassion.

It is immoral to violate another persons human rights, the fact that there are biblical laws allowing men to take captive women for wive is in and of itself immoral. No amount of justification on your part will ever make the immoral biblical laws that violate women's equal human rights moral. The more you try to justify the biblical immoralities, the more calloused and hard it makes you appear.

Human rights violations are human rights violations, no matter where or when they occurred!



Btw, you are already on record as saying you do NOT affirm that we have the ability to make free choices INDEPENDENT of any causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by necessity. You said you neither affirm free will nor deny it. Hence, you don't affirm it. And this alone CRUMBLES your entire moral foundation. Here's why ...

You are a disciple of Richard's moral theory, which as far as I know, you guys are the only nontheists to hold to it. According to Richard, this "objective" moral theory of his is rooted in *REASON*. This is where your problem kicks in, Rose. If you do not affirm that we have the ability to make free choices INDEPENDENT of any causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by necessity, then THERE IS NO REASONING in your worldview. This is because the ability to reason NECESSARILY requires one to be able to freely choose between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Hence, your entire moral foundation CRUMBLES without free will, which is inconsistent under materialism. Hence, there's no point for anyone to even engage any of your moral criticisms of the bible because you're left without an OBJECTIVE standard of morality ...

So to sum up ...


No free will = No reason

No reason = No objective standard to ground Richard's moral theory


I am Gambini and I assure you that the hebrew alphabet is the key to unlocking the mysteries behind the private life of plants (and also of ant colonies).

You shouldn't make assertions that you know nothing about. Neither Richard nor I are disciples of each other, we both independently came to our moral theories. Given that you are extremely limited in the number of nontheists you know, the statement you made is meaningless.

As I have stated numerous times, the foundation of my moral theory is based on human rights. It is a scientific fact that all people share the quality of being human, and as such are entitled to equal human rights. It is immoral to violate another persons human rights ... that is the foundation of morality.

Take care my fellow human and treat others with kindness :winking0071:

Rose

Rose
06-23-2014, 09:27 AM
When I stop and think about all the discussions I have had on the issue of the biblical law that allows the gross human rights violation of letting men take any captive woman they desire as a wife, I find that every person that has tried to defend and justify that law HAS BEEN A MAN. In Gambini's last post he even went so far as to try and justify the law by saying the captured women were given an opportunity to have "Free" children, instead of stating that it was the men who got "Free" sex! How pathetic.


2) They would be given an opportunity to have FREE children and start a new family (which would mean everything to a female captive in the ancient near east).

The reason that men wrote those biased laws in the first place was so that they could have control over the women they wanted to have sex with ... it was all about domination and control.

It seems very telling that it was primitive men who wrote the gender-biased biblical laws in the first place, and now it is men who are defending and justifying those laws. If any of these men that I have been discussing this issue wish have daughters, I hope they never find out how their fathers feel about equal human rights for women.

Women's rights are human rights,
Rose

CWH
06-23-2014, 11:44 AM
[QUOTE=Rose;64158]When I stop and think about all the discussions I have had on the issue of the biblical law that allows the gross human rights violation of letting men take any captive woman they desire as a wife, I find that every person that has tried to defend and justify that law HAS BEEN A MAN. In Gambini's last post he even went so far as to try and justify the law by saying the captured women were given an opportunity to have "Free" children, instead of stating that it was the men who got "Free" sex! How pathetic.
Is marriage - free sex? They were married as husband and wife.
Funny, I thought Hippies believe in Free Sex and Drugs.


The reason that men wrote those biased laws in the first place was so that they could have control over the women they wanted to have sex with ... it was all about domination and control.

It seems very telling that it was primitive men who wrote the gender-biased biblical laws in the first place, and now it is men who are defending and justifying those laws. If any of these men that I have been discussing this issue wish have daughters, I hope they never find out how their fathers feel about equal human rights for women.
Are you a sex maniac? Everything is about sex? Men have a responsibility to protect the womenfolks as ordained by God; it is all about protecting the weaker sex. That has always been the role of men; Fight and die for the women and children, hunt food for the women and children, build houses for the women and children; Protect the women and children. Of course, some evil men use that power to abuse women and children or simply shed that responsibility.


Women's rights are human rights,
So are Men's rights human rights.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-23-2014, 02:37 PM
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=64158#post64158)
When I stop and think about all the discussions I have had on the issue of the biblical law that allows the gross human rights violation of letting men take any captive woman they desire as a wife, I find that every person that has tried to defend and justify that law HAS BEEN A MAN. In Gambini's last post he even went so far as to try and justify the law by saying the captured women were given an opportunity to have "Free" children, instead of stating that it was the men who got "Free" sex! How pathetic.

Is marriage - free sex? They were married as husband and wife.
Funny, I thought Hippies believe in Free Sex and Drugs.

Before you start making idiotic statements, you need to read what you are responding to. Gambini was trying to justify the gross human rights violations perpetrated against women in the Bible, by saying that the women got "Free" children (whatever that means :confused: ), so I stated that it was the men who wanted "Free" sex. If you will note in Deut. 21, it says that if a man sees a BEAUTIFUL woman whom he DESIRES :woah: he can have her ... the reason men lust after beautiful women, is because they want to have sex with them. :doh: Do you actually think a man would want to marry a woman he didn't want to have sex with?



Are you a sex maniac? Everything is about sex? Men have a responsibility to protect the womenfolks as ordained by God; it is all about protecting the weaker sex. That has always been the role of men; Fight and die for the women and children, hunt food for the women and children, build houses for the women and children; Protect the women and children. Of course, some evil men use that power to abuse women and children or simply shed that responsibility.

Sex seemed to be on the minds of the biblical authors a lot ... that is why they wrote laws allowing men to own women like property, marry any captive woman they desired, and marry multiple women.

The only thing men need to protect women from is other men! The worst enemy of women is men. Most of the wars that have been fought are because men want to dominate and control other people, NOT to protect women. Women are perfectly capable of gathering food, building houses and raising children on their own. In much of the animal kingdom, the female raises and protects the offspring without the help of the male.


So are Men's rights human rights.

God Bless.:pray:

Yes, I absolutely think that men's rights are human rights, but its not women who are denying men their rights!

All humans are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-23-2014, 06:08 PM
Hello Craig

God may not have specifically commanded the "barbarity", but he sure allowed it to happen and was involved in it from the beginning. The whole incident started when god allowed a Levite to give his concubine to a group of men who at first demanded that the Levite give to them the man that was under his roof. Instead of giving over the man, the Levite offered his daughter and concubine to the men to do with as they wished. At any point god could have intervened and saved the life of the concubine and condemned the Levite, but he allowed the incident to happen and escalate to the point where he was involved in telling them who to send into battle first.

This is similar to what Lot did when he offered up his daughters to the men of Sodom, instead of the men that they demanded ... and in the New Testament Lot is called righteous!



Judges 19:22-26 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

Gen.19:5-8 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.



Notice that in both Judges and Genesis, the value of the women was far less than the men. In both cases the men were told to do to the women whatever seemed good in their eyes, this is totally on par with the law in Deut.21 that gives men the right to capture women they lust after and desire and do with as they please. Sad to say this is the nature of the Biblegod, he is proving over and over again that he is truly a moral monster!

Kind regards,
Rose

When I read this passage, it seemed to me that it was NOT ok that the concubine was raped and killed - that's why 40,000 Israelites were willing to later die to avenge the crime. Talk about Hellen of Troy.... If it was OK to the Israelites as you suggest, then why were so many Israelites willing to die to avenge her rape???

And the passage does not suggest that it was OK for the men to rape and kill the concubines. The Levite sacrificed his daughter to the mob, a great sacrifice, he offered up what was most valuable to him, and afterwards sought the justice from every tribe in Israel to avenge the crime. That was the depth of his outrage.


Also I would like to suggest that the similarity between this event and the Sodom and Gommorah incident may be more than simple coincidence. The same dynamics were at work. What ever influence corrupted Sodom seems to have corrupted the Benjaminites also, producing a kind of insanity - a rabid, insatiable lust.

Remember that the people of Sodom carried on seeking sex even after they had been blinded - does that sound normal to you? What compelled them so strongly?? They carried on even when maimed !! The description indicates that they were completely out of control - as if possessed. Another weird characteristic , is that the people acted as ONE - with a group mind - as if something were doing the thinking for the whole mass. (A similar mass mind thing occurred in the New Testament, where we find many creatures speaking with one voice - "We are legion, for we are many")

This corruption may have had something to do with their proximity to the nephilim tribe that they were supposed to have driven out.

I realise that your naturalistic presuppositions will never allow you to entertain such ideas, yet I also know that the Bible will never be completely explicable if the supernatural is entirely excluded.

Rose
06-23-2014, 07:02 PM
When I read this passage, it seemed to me that it was NOT ok that the concubine was raped and killed - that's why 40,000 Israelites were willing to later die to avenge the crime. Talk about Hellen of Troy.... If it was OK to the Israelites as you suggest, then why were so many Israelites willing to die to avenge her rape???

Hello Craig,

I think you missed the BIG point here ... I am not talking about how the Israelites felt, rather I am talking about the nature of the Biblegod. If the Biblegod is real as you believe, then why did he not at least rebuke the Levite house master for giving his concubine over to be raped? The story implies that god was a very active player in the whole affair.

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-23-2014, 07:33 PM
Hi Rose,

Once again, your argument is that God is guilty for what He did not do. I prefer to only judge God by His explicit words and explicit actions, rather than for what he did not say or do. I believe that this is a fairer approach because it avoids ascribing to God things that may have been the result of other independent factors. It will also allow you to arrive at a clearer verdict, less prone to the fogginess that comes from arguing from silence.

Rose
06-23-2014, 07:45 PM
Hi Rose,

Once again, your argument is that God is guilty for what He did not do. I prefer to only judge God by His explicit words and explicit actions, rather than for what he did not say or do. I believe that this is a fairer approach because it avoids ascribing to God things that may have been the result of other independent factors. It will also allow you to arrive at a clearer verdict, less prone to the fogginess that comes from arguing from silence.

No problem Craig :thumb: The Bible has supplied more than enough explicit words to condemn its god hundreds of times over. :lol:

Craig.Paardekooper
06-23-2014, 08:06 PM
Hi Rose,

I am glad that there are plenty more explicit verses for us to chew over. Whatever the verdict, it will be fair and square. I look forward to your next instalment. Sometimes I think it would make an interesting eBook - "God on Trial". For sure, you would be the prosecution. But we would have to deal with each "war crime" one at a time - making sure that we have the context correct in each case. I am sure that the educational value of such an exercise would be considerable.

Rose
06-23-2014, 08:17 PM
Hi Rose,

I am glad that there are plenty more explicit verses for us to chew over. Whatever the verdict, it will be fair and square. I look forward to your next instalment. Sometimes I think it would make an interesting eBook - "God on Trial". For sure, you would be the prosecution. But we would have to deal with each "war crime" one at a time - making sure that we have the context correct in each case. I am sure that the educational value of such an exercise would be considerable.

Hello Craig,

Speaking of "God on Trial" here is a video where they did just that ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5caAug5n8Zk

Craig.Paardekooper
06-23-2014, 08:49 PM
I will take a look.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-24-2014, 03:03 AM
Craig,

Who knows why the difference in treatment? The Bible portrays god as a one dimensional stooge. Many verses say he is not all knowing or not all powerful. Yahweh is short for "Yahweh Sabaoth" and it means he who musters armies. Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.

The Bible portrays Yahweh as "just" a man throughout the Bible. The only thing the biblegod can think of is violence to solve problems. That is totally a human mentality. If you are all powerful, then you have infinite possibilities and the only solution is violence and more violence? Ironically, in Deuteronomy 20:4 we read this: 4 For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.. Is God really doing the fighting or is he just with them in spirit? If he is all powerful and with them in spirit nothing should be impossible. But Judges 1:19 tells us he has limited powers. And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Chariots of iron stopped God in his tracks? Is he all powerful or just a man? Sure sounds like a man fighting with his army to me.

Everywhere you turn god has man like qualities.

Also, you said that god never explicitly commanded the barbarity in Judges 19-21, and were all to willing to give god a pass.

What about the verses you quoted? Deut. 20:13-14 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Right there he commanded the slaughter of every male and the taking of women and children. The Bible is filled with filth like this from beginning to end. The Bible tells stories about a bronze age tribal war god(man). The stories about God are on par with the mass murderers throughout history. If you tally up all the slaughtering god has done it is in excess of 25 million +. Rather pathetic for a loving creator god.



Hello Number 67,


But Judges 1:19 tells us he has limited powers. And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

The actual Bible says
"and they (the Israelites) drave out the inhabtants of the mountains"

A big difference in meaning, otherwise for sure God would have been thwarted by iron chariots.


Also, you said that god never explicitly commanded the barbarity in Judges 19-21, and were all to willing to give god a pass.

What about the verses you quoted? Deut. 20:13-14 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Right there he commanded the slaughter of every male and the taking of women and children.

In this verse, the Bible says that the Israelites must offer the city a chance to surrender first - an offer of peace. In which case, they are ALL taken as prisoners of war - and must do forced labour.

However, if they choose not to surrender - then when the city is captured all the men must die. So the Bible says that the offer of peace and surrender must always come first. But if the enemy reject that then they must all die. In either case though, women and children must be spared.

What is your opinion regarding this policy?


Many verses say he is not all knowing or not all powerful. Yahweh is short for "Yahweh Sabaoth" and it means he who musters armies. Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.






The Bible portrays Yahweh as "just" a man throughout the Bible.

Yes, in the Bible there are frequent occasions when God sends an angel to do His work - an angel is just a servant of God with limited powers and limited knowledge. Three angels appeared to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. They had been sent for a specific task, and to complete it they had to gain some knowledge. THey were not God - they were merely servants of God

In Daniel, the angels indicated that they had to fight battles before they could reach Daniel to help him. Again sounds like the angels were servants of God, rather than God Himself. So your observation that these beings show traits of finitude and limited knowledge is correct.

According o tradition, there is an entire hierarchy of beings in the service of the Almighty - from watchers to angels to archangels - then to cherubim and seraphim etc etc. All are limited to some degree, but all have in common that they are servants of God, and act in his name.


For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.

It is true that God says quite often regarding the conquest that HE is going before them to drive out their enemies. You could, of course imagine that this was mere hyperbole or a metaphor for conquest. However, I noticed this pattern -

After the first Passover, in the time of Moses, 3000 perished at the following Pentecost, and there were 40 years until the Israelites entered the Promised Land.
After the last Passover, (Last Supper) in the time of Christ, 3000 gained new life at Pentecost, and there were 40 years until the Israelites were removed from the Promised Land.

Also, according to the traditional dating found in the Ussher chronology, there were 555555 days from the date that the Israelites entered the Promised Land in 1452 B.C. and drove out the inhabitants until they themselves were driven out of the Land in 70 A.D. which suggests to me that God did drive out the inhabitants before them, in both cases.

IN fact God's participation in the final exodus of 70 A.D. you can find documented in my book - the Sign of the Son of Man - http://www.craigdemo.co.uk

Seems like the same God acting behind the scenes in both cases.


The Bible is filled with filth like this from beginning to end. The Bible tells stories about a bronze age tribal war god(man). The stories about God are on par with the mass murderers throughout history. If you tally up all the slaughtering god has done it is in excess of 25 million +. Rather pathetic for a loving creator god.

I think it is best for us to take each incident one at a time. Summing up should come at the end of the trial. Right now we are assessing individual "misdemeanors" one at a time - in detail. I am glad that you are full of vitriol - it can only propel us towards a more precise conclusion.

L67
06-24-2014, 06:48 AM
Hello Number 67,



The actual Bible says
"and they (the Israelites) drave out the inhabtants of the mountains"

A big difference in meaning, otherwise for sure God would have been thwarted by iron chariots.

Craig,

What actual Bible are you talking about? You can read the Hebrew translation for yourself and it does NOT say "they". It says exactly what I said it does. It says Yahweh was with Judah and "HE". http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jdg1.pdf
My point still stands. Picking another translation that you like does NOT change the problem here.


In this verse, the Bible says that the Israelites must offer the city a chance to surrender first - an offer of peace. In which case, they are ALL taken as prisoners of war - and must do forced labour.

However, if they choose not to surrender - then when the city is captured all the men must die. So the Bible says that the offer of peace and surrender must always come first. But if the enemy reject that then they must all die. In either case though, women and children must be spared.

What is your opinion regarding this policy?

Yea, that is some peace offering. They either surrender and become slaves or be slaughtered. Deut 20:10-11 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

There is the biblegod condoing slavery again. And if the people refuse to be slaves the males get slaughtered, while the women will be kidnapped and forced to marry.

It's just plain sickening.




Yes, in the Bible there are frequent occasions when God sends an angel to do His work - an angel is just a servant of God with limited powers and limited knowledge. Three angels appeared to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. They had been sent for a specific task, and to complete it they had to gain some knowledge. THey were not God - they were merely servants of God

This is so silly. The angels have a specific task and the omnipotent god doesn't inform of all the knowledge they need? What kind of leader is that?


In Daniel, the angels indicated that they had to fight battles before they could reach Daniel to help him. Again sounds like the angels were servants of God, rather than God Himself. So your observation that these beings show traits of finitude and limited knowledge is correct.

According o tradition, there is an entire hierarchy of beings in the service of the Almighty - from watchers to angels to archangels - then to cherubim and seraphim etc etc. All are limited to some degree, but all have in common that they are servants of God, and act in his name.

And why does an omnipotent god need any beings to help him? He can do anything he wants, yet chooses to have help by angels or humans every step of the way. Nothing could be more obvious that men wrote the construct for god in their own minds.




It is true that God says quite often regarding the conquest that HE is going before them to drive out their enemies. You could, of course imagine that this was mere hyperbole or a metaphor for conquest.

Why should anyone think of it as hyperbole? Especially when you consider what Yahweh's name really means and all the human traits Yahweh exhibits.


However, I noticed this pattern -

After the first Passover, in the time of Moses, 3000 perished at the following Pentecost, and there were 40 years until the Israelites entered the Promised Land.
After the last Passover, (Last Supper) in the time of Christ, 3000 gained new life at Pentecost, and there were 40 years until the Israelites were removed from the Promised Land.

Seems like the same God acting behind the scenes in both cases.

And that proves absolutely nothing. What are we suppose to take from this?




I think it is best for us to take each incident one at a time. Summing up should come at the end of the trial. Right now we are assessing individual "misdemeanors" one at a time - in detail. I am glad that you are full of vitriol - it can only propel us towards a more precise conclusion.

Great! The conclusion will be the right one as long as we don't play with the meaning of words.

CWH
06-24-2014, 08:38 AM
Before you start making idiotic statements, you need to read what you are responding to. Gambini was trying to justify the gross human rights violations perpetrated against women in the Bible, by saying that the women got "Free" children (whatever that means :confused: ), so I stated that it was the men who wanted "Free" sex. If you will note in Deut. 21, it says that if a man sees a BEAUTIFUL woman whom he DESIRES :woah: he can have her ... the reason men lust after beautiful women, is because they want to have sex with them. :doh: Do you actually think a man would want to marry a woman he didn't want to have sex with?
The undeniable fact is that they were MARRIED so that sex is allowable to raise a family if not it would be considered as rape. The beauty and desire is immaterial, who does not want a beautiful wife? Since the men can a]have many wives, it doen't matter if they have wives that are not as beautiful. Same with the women, they married the men so that they can raise a family. Which woman does not want a handsome husband?


Sex seemed to be on the minds of the biblical authors a lot ... that is why they wrote laws allowing men to own women like property, marry any captive woman they desired, and marry multiple women.
Because it is ordained by God to multiply and fill the world.(Genesis 1) so that humans do not go extinct. Men always has a responsibility to look after the womenfolks in all cultures. Given a choice, men would not want to be responsible over the women, they are so difficult to look after as you can see for yourself...:winking0071::D


The only thing men need to protect women from is other men! The worst enemy of women is men. Most of the wars that have been fought are because men want to dominate and control other people, NOT to protect women. Women are perfectly capable of gathering food, building houses and raising children on their own. In much of the animal kingdom, the female raises and protects the offspring without the help of the male.
Without the male , the whole animal tribe will be exterminated by other animals and opponents. Women need the men same as men need the women so that they becomes one. Both work together to raise the family, that 's the ideal family that God wants so that the family benefits, not single parents. Same as I would put to you, men are perfectly capable of gathering food, building houses and raising children on their own without the women.


Yes, I absolutely think that men's rights are human rights, but its not women who are denying men their rights! All humans are entitled to equal human rights,
Evil men deny women equal rights. All humans are entitled equal rights based on merits....or do you prefer free-riders or opportunists or "parasites"?...is this equal and fair?

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-24-2014, 08:54 AM
I think it is best for us to take each incident one at a time. Summing up should come at the end of the trial. Right now we are assessing individual "misdemeanors" one at a time - in detail. I am glad that you are full of vitriol - it can only propel us towards a more precise conclusion.

Hello Craig,

If you are calling slaughter of the innocents, rape and theft "misdemeanors", what may I ask do you consider to be capital offenses?

The first act of injustice on the part of the Biblegod after the fall, is the incident of Cain murdering Able. The punishment that Cain receives for killing his brother is to be "cursed from the earth" ... he is allowed to settle down in a city, marry and have children, and is protected from harm with a mark. On the other hand, anyone who kills Cain will have vengeance taken on him sevenfold! Seems a bit unfair if you ask me.

Gen.4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


These kinds of acts of injustice happen often throughout the Bible, allowing murderers, theives and rapists to receive no more that a proverbial "Slap on the hand", while those who commit "misdemeanors" are charged with a capital offense and killed ... all by command of the Biblegod.

Cities of refuge are designated to protect murderers, yet those who pick up sticks, or are not virgins on their wedding night have no place of refuge, they are stoned to death by command of the law given by the Biblegod. Injustice abounds at every turn of the page.

Let the trial begin ...
Rose

Rose
06-24-2014, 09:25 AM
The undeniable fact is that they were MARRIED so that sex is allowable to raise a family if not it would be considered as rape. The beauty and desire is immaterial, who does not want a beautiful wife? Since the men can a]have many wives, it doen't matter if they have wives that are not as beautiful. Same with the women, they married the men so that they can raise a family. Which woman does not want a handsome husband?

Just because forced marriages are allowable under biblical law does not make them morally right. It is still a violation of a woman's human rights to be forced to marry a man and have sex with him against her will. Men are not automatically entitled to sex because they are married, the wife still has control over her own body ... that is her human right!



Because it is ordained by God to multiply and fill the world.(Genesis 1) so that humans do not go extinct. Men always has a responsibility to look after the womenfolks in all cultures. Given a choice, men would not want to be responsible over the women, they are so difficult to look after as you can see for yourself...:winking0071::D

It is not a man's responsibility to look after women, rather it is a man's responsibility to treat women equally and respect their human rights! No one should be forced to marry and have children if they don't want to ... that would be a violation of a persons human rights.



Without the male , the whole animal tribe will be exterminated by other animals and opponents. Women need the men same as men need the women so that they becomes one. Both work together to raise the family, that 's the ideal family that God wants so that the family benefits, not single parents. Same as I would put to you, men are perfectly capable of gathering food, building houses and raising children on their own without the women.

Of course men are capable of taking care of themselves and raising children, I never said they weren't. You on the other hand made the statement that women need men to take care of them and their children... that is false.



Evil men deny women equal rights. All humans are entitled equal rights based on merits....or do you prefer free-riders or opportunists or "parasites"?...is this equal and fair?

God Bless.:pray:

Human Rights as laid out in the U.D.H.R. ARE NOT BASED ON MERITS! Human rights are based on the fact that we are all human.

Why can't you just say "All people are entitled to equal human rights"? Is it because you believe that human rights are based on merits? Don't you think that all people are equally human, and as such should receive equal human rights?

According to the Bible a woman's merits are not as good as a man's, so that is why she is denied equal human rights.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-24-2014, 09:44 AM
I will take a look.

Let me know what you think. The trial starts about 8 minutes into the video.

CWH
06-24-2014, 10:05 AM
When I read this passage, it seemed to me that it was NOT ok that the concubine was raped and killed - that's why 40,000 Israelites were willing to later die to avenge the crime. Talk about Hellen of Troy.... If it was OK to the Israelites as you suggest, then why were so many Israelites willing to die to avenge her rape???

And the passage does not suggest that it was OK for the men to rape and kill the concubines. The Levite sacrificed his daughter to the mob, a great sacrifice, he offered up what was most valuable to him, and afterwards sought the justice from every tribe in Israel to avenge the crime. That was the depth of his outrage.
I see it as an act for the greater good. I am not sure if the woman is of good character but I believe she was not and was punished for her sins. God was sacrificing evil against evil analogous to the police using criminals to catch criminals. the sacrifice of the concublne would then become a martyr and as such will be remembered as a brave act deserving from God a pardon and a resurection or reincarnation.


Also I would like to suggest that the similarity between this event and the Sodom and Gommorah incident may be more than simple coincidence. The same dynamics were at work. What ever influence corrupted Sodom seems to have corrupted the Benjaminites also, producing a kind of insanity - a rabid, insatiable lust.

Remember that the people of Sodom carried on seeking sex even after they had been blinded - does that sound normal to you? What compelled them so strongly?? They carried on even when maimed !! The description indicates that they were completely out of control - as if possessed. Another weird characteristic , is that the people acted as ONE - with a group mind - as if something were doing the thinking for the whole mass. (A similar mass mind thing occurred in the New Testament, where we find many creatures speaking with one voice - "We are legion, for we are many")

This corruption may have had something to do with their proximity to the nephilim tribe that they were supposed to have driven out.

I realise that your naturalistic presuppositions will never allow you to entertain such ideas, yet I also know that the Bible will never be completely explicable if the supernatural is entirely excluded.
It was a belief in ancient days that if you have sex with angels, you will gain immortality which may explain why the many men and perhaps women were eager to have sex with the angels. Compounding this, the sexual perversions of those men and women were so high that God have no choice but to destroy these people from the face of the earth. Such total destruction may seems cruel but on the positive side it removes the evil that would have spread if not contained; same like killing harmful pathogens. God may have destroyed them to prevent them from committing more evil and the more evil being done, the more difficult is for God to pardon their sins. This is analogous to a judge sentencing a criminal who committed many crimes thus deserving a much higher sentence.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 10:47 AM
Just because forced marriages are allowable under biblical law does not make them morally right. It is still a violation of a woman's human rights to be forced to marry a man and have sex with him against her will. Men are not automatically entitled to sex because they are married, the wife still has control over her own body ... that is her human right!
Think about it and tell me which marriage in this world is not forced? We are forced to get married by instinct, by age, by urge to propagate, by sexual urge, by circumstances etc. Marriage is a contract binding to both party whereby sex is legal, dutiable and allowable for the purpose of propagation and love. Both gender have control over their body but is mutually understandable to give up that control for the purpose of propagation or love; if not married for what?


It is not a man's responsibility to look after women, rather it is a man's responsibility to treat women equally and respect their human rights! No one should be forced to marry and have children if they don't want to ... that would be a violation of a persons human rights.
Then married for what? God ordained a duty that both are to be united as one and multiply. It has always been the responsibility of men in all culture to look after the women and treat them with respect but evil men do otherwise.


Of course men are capable of taking care of themselves and raising children, I never said they weren't. You on the other hand made the statement that women need men to take care of them and their children... that is false.
No, I am saying men and women requires each other to live and work together for the family and a better world. This is the ideal situation.


Human Rights as laid out in the U.D.H.R. ARE NOT BASED ON MERITS! Human rights are based on the fact that we are all human.

Why can't you just say "All people are entitled to equal human rights"? Is it because you believe that human rights are based on merits? Don't you think that all people are equally human, and as such should receive equal human rights?
The UDHR is based on being human and based on fairness. Which better fairness is there beside merits? equal pay for equal work... equal hours of rest for equal job, equal healthcare funds for equal standard of personal health, equal tax for equal income, equal medical treatment based on equal diagnosis and acuity etc. etc. That is real equality.


According to the Bible a woman's merits are not as good as a man's, so that is why she is denied equal human rights
All people are entitled to equal human rights,
You don't understand the meaning of merits....."God help those who help themselves". You get what you sow. You work peanuts, you get peanuts; you work apples you get apples, isn't this fair and equal?...or do you think it is fair that you don't work and get paid from other people's work and expense? If female are more vulnerable, they should get more protection, if you are poor, you should get more subsidies etc. etc. Isn't these fair and square?

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-24-2014, 11:05 AM
I see it as an act for the greater good. I am not sure if the woman is of good character but I believe she was not and was punished for her sins. God was sacrificing evil against evil analogous to the police using criminals to catch criminals. the sacrifice of the concublne would then become a martyr and as such will be remembered as a brave act deserving from God a pardon and a resurection or reincarnation.

I cannot believe I am actually reading the words you just wrote! You are actually trying to justify the horrendous, heinous act of a woman being tortured and raped to death, by saying she was being punished for her sins and it was an act for the greater good!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: You are a living example of how religion corrupts a persons morals.

I am horrified at the calloused and hardened state of your conscience. To imply that the god you believe in, allowed a man to give his concubine over to a hoard of men to rape and torture all night, until she dies on the steps of her home in the morning in order to punish the woman for her so-called sins???



It was a belief in ancient days that if you have sex with angels, you will gain immortality which may explain why the many men and perhaps women were eager to have sex with the angels. Compounding this, the sexual perversions of those men and women were so high that God have no choice but to destroy these people from the face of the earth. Such total destruction may seems cruel but on the positive side it removes the evil that would have spread if not contained; same like killing harmful pathogens. God may have destroyed them to prevent them from committing more evil and the more evil being done, the more difficult is for God to pardon their sins. This is analogous to a judge sentencing a criminal who committed many crimes thus deserving a much higher sentence.

God Bless.:pray:

The ludicrous thing about the Biblegod destroying people to prevent evil, is that it never works. Every incident where the Biblegod destroyed people on account of evil, starting with the Flood was for naught, because evil always came back as bad or worse than it was before!

CWH
06-24-2014, 11:17 AM
Hello Craig,

If you are calling slaughter of the innocents, rape and theft "misdemeanors", what may I ask do you consider to be capital offenses?

The first act of injustice on the part of the Biblegod after the fall, is the incident of Cain murdering Able. The punishment that Cain receives for killing his brother is to be "cursed from the earth" ... he is allowed to settle down in a city, marry and have children, and is protected from harm with a mark. On the other hand, anyone who kills Cain will have vengeance taken on him sevenfold! Seems a bit unfair if you ask me.

Gen.4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


These kinds of acts of injustice happen often throughout the Bible, allowing murderers, theives and rapists to receive no more that a proverbial "Slap on the hand", while those who commit "misdemeanors" are charged with a capital offense and killed ... all by command of the Biblegod.

Cities of refuge are designated to protect murderers, yet those who pick up sticks, or are not virgins on their wedding night have no place of refuge, they are stoned to death by command of the law given by the Biblegod. Injustice abounds at every turn of the page.

Let the trial begin ...
Rose

Cain was spared because God wanted to make use of him to test evil, He punished Cain by forcing him to be isolated in a place for killing Abel. Same as we would asked of God, why spare Satan?.... so that Satan could test humans if they are prone towards Satan or prone towards God. This is analogous to a robot maker who wanted to test his robots to find out why and how the robot becomes corrupted and will rebuke anyone strictly who interfere with his tests.

Any one who breaks the law is to punished according to the law. If the law states that if you pick up sticks on a Sabbath or are not virgins they will be stoned. Laws need to be upheld for integrity and justice. Same as with secular laws in some countries, Death for rape. murder, drug trafficking, adultery etc. Od course, there are always exception to the rules in which if there is a good and fair reason, the criminal may be spared and given a lighter sentence.

Death to God is immaterial as he can resurrect and reincarnate the souls that he destroyed which in this case Abel who was reincarnated as Seth whom I believe was better than Abel. This is analogous to a car maker who destroy faulty cars to make better ones.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 11:39 AM
I cannot believe I am actually reading the words you just wrote! You are actually trying to justify the horrendous, heinous act of a woman being tortured and raped to death, by saying she was being punished for her sins and it was an act for the greater good!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: You are a living example of how religion corrupts a persons morals.
I cannot believe my eyes that you cannot understand what is a moral sacrifice. It is like soldiers sent to the frontline to fight and sacrifice their lives so that the country can be saved. They will be compensated by honor and monetary recompensation. Is that immoral? God will recompensate the woman for such bravery act with pardon, blessings, resurrection and even reincarnation.


I am horrified at the calloused and hardened state of your conscience. To imply that the god you believe in, allowed a man to give his concubine over to a hoard of men to rape and torture all night, until she dies on the steps of her home in the morning in order to punish the woman for her so-called sins???
I am also horrified that you blame God of everything; might as well blame Obama for every single negative thing that happened in the US. The man and not God gave the concubine over to the evil men to be raped so that the purpose of which was to take revenge on the evil men to ensure that justice was done and major changes will be done to prevent such evil. This is analogous to the Indian woman who was raped in India and the Indian law now stipulated death for heinous rape for better protection for women.


The ludicrous thing about the Biblegod destroying people to prevent evil, is that it never works. Every incident where the Biblegod destroyed people on account of evil, starting with the Flood was for naught, because evil always came back as bad or worse than it was before!
Yes, evil is difficult to be completely eliminated but at least the rate of evil will be more manageable so that life can still be reasonably maintained. But rest assured that the day will come when evil people will be gathered in one place and all evil people will be wiped out in one fell swoop. This is analogous to US fighting terrorism knowing that world terrorism cannot be completely eliminated by can be reduced to manageable level so that the world will be a safer place to live in.


God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-24-2014, 11:44 AM
Think about it and tell me which marriage in this world is not forced? We are forced to get married by instinct, by age, by urge to propagate, by sexual urge, by circumstances etc. Marriage is a contract binding to both party whereby sex is legal, dutiable and allowable for the purpose of propagation and love. Both gender have control over their body but is mutually understandable to give up that control for the purpose of propagation or love; if not married for what?


Then married for what? God ordained a duty that both are to be united as one and multiply. It has always been the responsibility of men in all culture to look after the women and treat them with respect but evil men do otherwise.


Being "forced" to marry as you call it, by your own instincts, sexual urges etc. is far different than forcing someone else to marry against their will. For some reason you are having a very difficult time understanding that women should have the right to choose IF they want to get married, and to WHOM they want to get married. Marriage is a partnership and should always be freely entered into by both parties, it should never forced.

Yes, sex is a part of marriage, but if people choose to not have sex, then they should be free to leave the marriage. Sex should never be forced on another person, whether they are in a marriage or not.




The UDHR is based on being human and based on fairness. Which better fairness is there beside merits? equal pay for equal work... equal hours of rest for equal job, equal healthcare funds for equal standard of personal health, equal tax for equal income, equal medical treatment based on equal diagnosis and acuity etc. etc. That is real equality.


You don't understand the meaning of merits....."God help those who help themselves". You get what you sow. You work peanuts, you get peanuts; you work apples you get apples, isn't this fair and equal?...or do you think it is fair that you don't work and get paid from other people's work and expense? If female are more vulnerable, they should get more protection, if you are poor, you should get more subsidies etc. etc. Isn't these fair and square?

God Bless.:pray:

Human rights are not based on merits! Human rights are based on being human. Even the Bible does not base its laws on merit ... it bases them on gender and race.

All people are human and as such are entitled to equal human rights. I cannot believe you have such a difficult time understanding that the foundation of human rights is based on being human ... NOT on merits!

Let me tell you what is fair, just and equal in the area of human rights ... what is fair, and just is that all people are treated with equal human rights.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-24-2014, 12:10 PM
I cannot believe my eyes that you cannot understand what is a moral sacrifice. It is like soldiers sent to the frontline to fight and sacrifice their lives so that the country can be saved. They will be compensated by honor and monetary recompensation. Is that immoral? God will recompensate the woman for such bravery act with pardon, blessings, resurrection and even reincarnation.

You call the woman being handed over to be tortured and raped to death a moral sacrifice??? :eek: :eek: Your idea of morality is corrupted by your religion. Anyone who would defend and justify the act of torturing and raping a woman to death by calling it a moral sacrifice, may just be beyond hope.



I see it as an act for the greater good. I am not sure if the woman is of good character but I believe she was not and was punished for her sins. God was sacrificing evil against evil analogous to the police using criminals to catch criminals. the sacrifice of the concublne would then become a martyr and as such will be remembered as a brave act deserving from God a pardon and a resurection or reincarnation.

I am also horrified that you blame God of everything; might as well blame Obama for every single negative thing that happened in the US. The man and not God gave the concubine over to the evil men to be raped so that the purpose of which was to take revenge on the evil men to ensure that justice was done and major changes will be done to prevent such evil. This is analogous to the Indian woman who was raped in India and the Indian law now stipulated death for heinous rape for better protection for women.

First you say it was god who was punishing the woman for her sins, and then you say it was man and not god ... I wish you would make up your mind. :dizzy:



Yes, evil is difficult to be completely eliminated but at least the rate of evil will be more manageable so that life can still be reasonably maintained. But rest assured that the day will come when evil people will be gathered in one place and all evil people will be wiped out in one fell swoop. This is analogous to US fighting terrorism knowing that world terrorism cannot be completely eliminated by can be reduced to manageable level so that the world will be a safer place to live in.


God Bless.:pray:

Are you saying something is too difficult for your god?? Maybe you better find a new god. :p

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-24-2014, 01:06 PM
Cain was spared because God wanted to make use of him to test evil, He punished Cain by forcing him to be isolated in a place for killing Abel. Same as we would asked of God, why spare Satan?.... so that Satan could test humans if they are prone towards Satan or prone towards God. This is analogous to a robot maker who wanted to test his robots to find out why and how the robot becomes corrupted and will rebuke anyone strictly who interfere with his tests.

Injustice and unfairness are the relevant points here. Cain's punishment for murder was far different than for anyone who would kill him. The decrees of the Biblegod are neither fair nor just!


Any one who breaks the law is to punished according to the law. If the law states that if you pick up sticks on a Sabbath or are not virgins they will be stoned. Laws need to be upheld for integrity and justice. Same as with secular laws in some countries, Death for rape. murder, drug trafficking, adultery etc. Od course, there are always exception to the rules in which if there is a good and fair reason, the criminal may be spared and given a lighter sentence.

1. Just because there is a law does not mean that law is moral or just.

2. The Biblegod is not consistent nor fair in his meting out of punishment according to his own law. David was able to get away with murder and adultery and his innocent firstborn son was punished with suffering and death.

3. There is no integrity or justice in upholding immoral laws ... the opposite is true.



Death to God is immaterial as he can resurrect and reincarnate the souls that he destroyed which in this case Abel who was reincarnated as Seth whom I believe was better than Abel. This is analogous to a car maker who destroy faulty cars to make better ones.

God Bless.:pray:

That is just a pathetic excuse you use to try and justify the Biblegods immoral behavior. Humans cannot be replaced like cars and suffering cannot be undone. Your lack of compassion and empathy is astounding, you actually think that people can be replaced like cars.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-24-2014, 02:07 PM
L67 said

What actual Bible are you talking about? You can read the Hebrew translation for yourself and it does NOT say "they". It says exactly what I said it does. It says Yahweh was with Judah and "HE". http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jdg1.pdf
My point still stands. Picking another translation that you like does NOT change the problem here.

I used the New International version which says EXACTLY what I said. I did not need to pick, since I have used the NIV my whole life.
However here are the translations of other Bible versions -

1. American Standard Version - "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not [l]drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots"

2. Amplified Bible - The Lord was with Judah, and [Judah] drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, but he could not drive out those inhabiting the [difficult] valley basin because they had chariots of iron.

3. Common English Bible - Thus the Lord was with the tribe of Judah, and they took possession of the highlands. However, they didn’t drive out those who lived in the plain because they had iron chariots.

I could go on, but if you choose to peruse the Bible Gateway and view all current versions of the passage, you will find that in fact they all concur with me.


Yea, that is some peace offering. They either surrender and become slaves or be slaughtered. Deut 20:10-11 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

There is the biblegod condoing slavery again. And if the people refuse to be slaves the males get slaughtered, while the women will be kidnapped and forced to marry.

It's just plain sickening.

These are the options for ENEMIES. An enemy is someone who has already attacked you. eg raided your land, killed or maimed your people. The Bible says that when approaching an enemy city, offer them surrender first - so they become prisoners of war.

Are you suggesting that the Hebrews applied the same 2 options when approaching friendly cities also???

The situation with the Benjaminites is a good example. The Benjaminites had attacked the Levite concubine. So the Israelites approached the Benjaminite town seeking surrender of the guilty men. The entire town rose up against the Israelites though and killed many of them.



This is so silly. The angels have a specific task and the omnipotent god doesn't inform of all the knowledge they need? What kind of leader is that?



And why does an omnipotent god need any beings to help him? He can do anything he wants, yet chooses to have help by angels or humans every step of the way. Nothing could be more obvious that men wrote the construct for god in their own minds.

Silly or not, it is actually what the Bible says - God sends lesser beings to deal with us directly - eg watchers, angels, guides, prophets, etc. None of these are omniscient. But all of these come in the name of God and try, as best they can, to serve God's purposes. You may think the order of the universe is silly, but that does not make it untrue.

Why God gives tasks to these beings is unknown to me, and is irrelevant the argument you posed - namely that God's messengers show lack of omniscience, so they must be fabrications. My response is that God's messengers are lesser than God, so we should not expect them to exhibit God-like omniscience.



Great! The conclusion will be the right one as long as we don't play with the meaning of words

100% agree with you.

Rose
06-24-2014, 04:43 PM
L67 said

What actual Bible are you talking about? You can read the Hebrew translation for yourself and it does NOT say "they". It says exactly what I said it does. It says Yahweh was with Judah and "HE". http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/jdg1.pdf (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jdg1.pdf)
My point still stands. Picking another translation that you like does NOT change the problem here.

I used the New International version which says EXACTLY what I said. I did not need to pick, since I have used the NIV my whole life.
However here are the translations of other Bible versions -

1. American Standard Version - "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not [l]drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots"

2. Amplified Bible - The Lord was with Judah, and [Judah] drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, but he could not drive out those inhabiting the [difficult] valley basin because they had chariots of iron.

3. Common English Bible - Thus the Lord was with the tribe of Judah, and they took possession of the highlands. However, they didn’t drive out those who lived in the plain because they had iron chariots.

I could go on, but if you choose to peruse the Bible Gateway and view all current versions of the passage, you will find that in fact they all concur with me.


Hi Craig,

L67 is right, if you look at the Hebrew (I checked my Hebrew Interlinear Bible) in Judges 1:19 the word "they" does not appear. The other translations probably inserted "they" because it seemed more plausible than "he".

Aside from that, it clearly states that the Lord was with Judah, so if that is the case why couldn't they drive out the inhabitants with god's help, since it says he was with them?

Rose
06-24-2014, 05:04 PM
These are the options for ENEMIES. An enemy is someone who has already attacked you. eg raided your land, killed or maimed your people. The Bible says that when approaching an enemy city, offer them surrender first - so they become prisoners of war.



According to the Bible, an enemy isn't always someone who has attacked you ... sometime it is merely because they occupy land and possess goods that you think your god has given you.

L67
06-24-2014, 07:30 PM
Hi Craig,

L67 is right, if you look at the Hebrew (I checked my Hebrew Interlinear Bible) in Judges 1:19 the word "they" does not appear. The other translations probably inserted "they" because it seemed more plausible than "he".

Aside from that, it clearly states that the Lord was with Judah, so if that is the case why couldn't they drive out the inhabitants with god's help, since it says he was with them?

Thank you Rose.

Here is the online Hebrew Interlinear Bible that I tried to post earlier. Anyone can have a look for themselves. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

Your question brings up a bigger problem. The Bible clearly says that if God is not with you , then you will be defeated. But, If God is with you victory is guaranteed.

Numbers 14:42-43 2 Do not go up, because the Lord is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43 for the Amalekites and the Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the Lord, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.”


Deuteronomy 20:1-4 20 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them. 4 For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”


God was with Judah and he couldn't defeat the chariots of iron. Things that make you go hmmm....

Gambini
06-24-2014, 08:27 PM
"L67 is right"

First of all, L67 is the LAST person anyone should trust when it comes to arguing anything having to do with the bible. The guy even denies the historical *FACT* that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person. And then he has the nerve to mock CWH for his skepticism of evolution by pointing out that the majority of scientists accept evolution. I guess somebody forgot to tell him that creationism is WAY more represented among PhD scientists than Christ Mythicism is among academic historians :lol:

Anyways, Craig is 100% correct. The MAJORITY of translations support his rendering of the text. There's two reasons for that ...

1) The original Hebrew in that passage ALLOWS for that rendering.

2) The book of Judges ITSELF tells you that the LORD stomped on Sisera and the 900 CHARIOTS OF IRON of Jabin in chapter four! DUH! ...

Judges 4:3 reads ... "And the children of Israel cried out to the LORD; for Jabin (the captain of Sisera) had 900 CHARIOTS OF IRON and for twenty years he had oppressed the children of Israel" ...

And Judges 4:15 reads "And *THE LORD* ROUTED Sisera and ALL his chariots and ALL his army with the edge of the sword".

Hence, the MAJORITY translation that Craig was referencing is *OBVIOUSLY* the accurate one because the book of Judges ITSELF tells you three chapters later that *THE LORD* defeated the IRON CHARIOTS of Jabin. So obviously it wasn't God who couldn't defeat the iron chariots in Judges 1:19. It was "THEY" (Judah) who couldn't defeat them. Hence, almost all translations say "THEY" (which is perfectly consistent with the original Hebrew). The only question is why didn't God grant Judah a victory against the iron chariots in Judges 1:19. But that's not a problem biblically because the Torah FLAT OUT states that there are STIPULATIONS to having God back you up. That's why the entire OT is FILLED with examples of Israel FAILING.


Btw, don't think I didn't notice you completely dodged my argument. You claim your moral theory is rooted in the idea that humans should be treated with fairness because they are human. BUT YOU'RE USING YOUR *REASONING FACULTIES* TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION! Hence, my point still stands ...

Materialism NECESSARILY entails that EVERY thought is *GIVEN* to you as a deterministic result of a chain reaction of mindless atoms. Hence, there is no such thing as choice in your worldview. Hence, you DON'T have an objective moral foundation because your moral foundation is dependant on REASON, which is inconsistent with materialism (since reason NECESSITATES the ability to be able to CHOOSE between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition). Hence, all your moral critiques are utterly meaningless. And even worse ...

THERE ARE NO *PERSONS* UNDER MATERIALISM. If all you are is a configuration of atoms, then you're a DIFFERENT "person" every single day (since your body changes daily at the atomic level). The entire concept of the continuity of personhood loses all meaning. In fact, you have an entire NEW set of atoms every seven years! Further, your moral theory is supposed to be rooted in *LOVE*, no? Well, that's also inconsistent with your materialistic worldview! LOVE is utterly meaningless if all your thoughts are nothing more than a deterministic result of a causal chain reaction of chemical reactions reacting by NECESSITY (which is NECESSARILY the case under materialism). Besides ...

Your line about how humans should be treated fairly simply because they are human is nothing more than a prejudiced assertion (I say prejudiced because you're SUBJECTIVELY assigning greater importance to humans, whom you believe are animals). Nothing about your moral theory is objective. And you *NEED* an objective foundation for your moral theory if you expect anyone to take your moral criticisms of the bible seriously. Without an objective foundation, everyone's moral views would be nothing more than a matter of personal taste.

Lastly, WHO DECIDES WHEN A HUMAN BEING BECOMES HUMAN ANYWAYS (or when someone should STOP being considered human)??? You say humans should be given "human rights" because they have "humanness". But when does humanness begin and when does it end??? Someone could easily make the case that anyone who ceases to be productive to human society should be euthanized (thereby stripping them of this "humanness" you speak of). In other words, under your worldview, the very concept of "humanness" is completely ARBITRARY!!! Hence, this demonstrates even further that your moral theory is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Hell, I'll prove it ...

When did humans become humans??? Are you actually telling me there is universal agreement on the EXACT point that humans became humans (given materialism)??? At what point would you say self awareness is fully developed such that we can classify a brute beast as a human being with this "humanness" you speak of??? Whatever point you cue in on will naturally be ARBITRARY. If it's arbitrary, then your moral assertions are arbitrary (since you claim your moral theory is based on "humanness").


SHALOMness :pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 08:47 PM
Thank you Rose.

Here is the online Hebrew Interlinear Bible that I tried to post earlier. Anyone can have a look for themselves. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

Your question brings up a bigger problem. The Bible clearly says that if God is not with you , then you will be defeated. But, If God is with you victory is guaranteed.

Numbers 14:42-43 2 Do not go up, because the Lord is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43 for the Amalekites and the Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the Lord, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.”


Deuteronomy 20:1-4 20 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them. 4 For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”


God was with Judah and he couldn't defeat the chariots of iron. Things that make you go hmmm....
God is not afraid of chariots of iron and can easily destroy them. Theerfore, there must be some other interpretation which meant that the israelites lost faith and courage when they saw the chariots of iron which thy did not have and thus God did not want to support them which was why "they" failed:

Joshua 17:18 But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.

The issue here is why must God be with the Israelites if he could easily have defeated the enemies? As I said, the role of God was a supporting role and it was the Israelites who fought the war. This is analogous to the US government who did not fought the war but plays a supporting and directive role; it is the US soldiers who fought the wars. God used the Israelites to fight in order to test their commitment, loyalty, faith in God and if there was no or little faith, loyalty and commitment in their love and obedience to God, then God will not support them in the wars.

God is with you does not necessary mean you will be 100% protected, it depends on your faith and doing what is proper. Jesus said, "Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but those who did the will of my Father who is in heaven" and "if you have faith, you can move mountains".

Hi readers,
if you come across difficult passages, do your homework by intense research and referring to commentaries to give you a better idea of what experts and others interpret of the passage. Do not just use your own interpretation:


Pulpit Commentary

Verse 19. - Chariots of iron. The chariots of the Canaanites were very formidable to the Israelites, who had no means of coping with them. Thus we are told of Jabin, king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazer, that he had 900 chariots of iron, and mightily oppressed the children of Israel. They were later an important part of King Solomon's army (1 Kings 10:26). See too Joshua 17:16.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the Lord was with Judah,.... Encouraging, strengthening, succeeding, and giving the tribe victory over the Canaanites; the Targum is,"the Word of the Lord was for the help of the house of Judah:"

and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountains; the mountainous part of Judea, such as was about Jerusalem, and where Hebron stood, and other cities, see Joshua 15:48, &c. which though fortified both by nature and man, yet God being with them, they were easily subdued:

but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley; God forsaking them, because they were afraid of them, for a reason after mentioned, or through slothfulness, and being weary of fighting, or because they fell into some sins, which occasioned the divine displeasure; so the Targum,"after they had sinned, they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley:"

because they had chariots of iron; but this was no reason why they could not drive them out, if God was with them, who could as easily have delivered these into their hands, as the inhabitants of the mountains; but is the reason why they were afraid to fight with them, and to attempt to drive them out, and which they themselves gave why they did not.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

19. the Lord was with Judah; … but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley—The war was of the Lord, whose omnipotent aid would have ensured their success in every encounter, whether on the mountains or the plains, with foot soldiers or cavalry. It was distrust, the want of a simple and firm reliance on the promise of God, that made them afraid of the iron chariots (see on [210]Jos 11:4-9).

The other possible interpretation is that God did not want them to destroy the people in the plain "because they have chariots of iron" meaning the Israelites wanted to possess the chariots of iron for their own perhaps by negotiation and therefore did not want to destroy them.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 09:21 PM
First of all, L67 is the LAST person anyone should trust when it comes to arguing anything having to do with the bible. The guy even denies the historical *FACT* that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person. And then he has the nerve to mock CWH for his skepticism of evolution by pointing out that the majority of scientists accept evolution. I guess somebody forgot to tell him that creationism is WAY more represented among PhD scientists than Christ Mythicism is among academic historians
Thanks Gambini,

Actually what I wanted to portray is that the theory of evolution also started from Greek myths same as what L67 said of the Bible. And therefore, should we believe in the theory of evolution?

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

Excerpts:
Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal, because man needs prolonged nursing to live.[2] Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC), argued that what we call birth and death in animals are just the mingling and separations of elements which cause the countless "tribes of mortal things".[3] Specifically, the first animals and plants were like disjointed parts of the ones we see today, some of which survived by joining in different combinations, and then intermixing, and wherever "everything turned out as it would have if it were on purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way".

i also said that there are mountains of evidence of Intelligent designs and you just need to look around you and you can find millions of evidence of intelligent designs. so much so that humans have to learn everything from nature in order to come out with inventions and discoveries...you just name it....antibiotics, aerodynamics, geology, Biology, Physiology etc. etc.

I also said that Intelligent Design is accepted by renown scientists including Eistein. Those scientists may not be Christians at all but realized that there are intelligence in nature. The reason why it was not accepted is due to political conspiracy in the scientific community to thumb down any opponent to the theory of evolution. Just google and you will find a list of scientists who believe in intelligent design:

Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported ...
www.uncommondescent.com › Intelligent Design
Apr 7, 2012 - Nobel Laureate and Intelligent Design proponent: Dr. Brian ..... (2) 50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by ...

Nobel Prize Winners Who Believe in Intelligent Design ...
compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/.../nobel-prize-winners-who-believe...
Sep 22, 2011 - Some scientists argue that “well, there's an enormous number of .... Here is a full list of articles on intelligent design written by Stephen Meyer ...

Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News ...
www.evolutionnews.org/2007/.../scientists_who_support_intelli003594.h...
May 11, 2007 - One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many ...

Einstein Said That All Serious Scientists Believe In ...
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/.../einstein-said-that-all-serious-scientists-b...
Nov 9, 2013 - I believe one reason why so many great scientists come from the ranks of the ... I believe in intelligent design of the universe, but Obamacare is ...

Einstein and Intelligent Design
www.biblearchaeology.org/post/.../Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx
Jan 16, 2008 - Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as ... However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years ... In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:.

Intelligent design movement - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
They believe that the scientific theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual .... One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael .... The scientific community rejects teaching intelligent design as science ; ...

Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in ...
www.reasons.org/.../harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-desi...
Sep 10, 2012 - Reasons to Believe ... One of the most provocative arguments for intelligent design focuses on the recognition that ... Instead, they assert that when scientists refer to biochemical information, it is merely a scientific metaphor.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 09:44 PM
You call the woman being handed over to be tortured and raped to death a moral sacrifice??? :eek: :eek: Your idea of morality is corrupted by your religion. Anyone who would defend and justify the act of torturing and raping a woman to death by calling it a moral sacrifice, may just be beyond hope.
Then is it moral for soldiers fighting in ww2 and got killed fighting for freedom, to save victims of Holocaust, to destroy the evil concept of Naziism etc.? What if the woman willingly got herself to be raped and sacrificed at the obedience of her master so that she can be martyred so as to revenged against those evil people?.... Just the same with Jesus whose death will save bilions of lives.


First you say it was god who was punishing the woman for her sins, and then you say it was man and not god ... I wish you would make up your mind. :dizzy:
Same as I put to you, you are fighting for women rights or fighting for both men and women rights? Same as you put that whatever happened to the woman is the result of God allowing such things to happened even though it is the man that gave the concubine to the evil men. My gut feeing is it could be both but the moral issue is you can only blame someone who is the actual perpetrator which in this case was the concubine's master.


Are you saying something is too difficult for your god?? Maybe you better find a new god. :p
God is not 100% omnipotent; if not why test and create evil?
If the theory of evolution can't solve the problem of evil and equality of human rights for millions of years, you better get another theory.

All people are entitled to equal human rights based on merits and abilities and equal opportunities.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-24-2014, 09:58 PM
Injustice and unfairness are the relevant points here. Cain's punishment for murder was far different than for anyone who would kill him. The decrees of the Biblegod are neither fair nor just!

1. Just because there is a law does not mean that law is moral or just.

2. The Biblegod is not consistent nor fair in his meting out of punishment according to his own law. David was able to get away with murder and adultery and his innocent firstborn son was punished with suffering and death.

3. There is no integrity or justice in upholding immoral laws ... the opposite is true.
Same as secular laws throughout the world which is based on norms in which some people may get away for drug trafficking with a fine and others death sentence; it all depends on situations and norms.


That is just a pathetic excuse you use to try and justify the Biblegods immoral behavior. Humans cannot be replaced like cars and suffering cannot be undone. Your lack of compassion and empathy is astounding, you actually think that people can be replaced like cars.
It is just pathetic that you believe life is like the wind, it blows and ends with no hope. People who believe thus have no hope for the future. Humans can be replaced if only you don't live in your primitive world and belief. Live beyond the 21st century whereby one day, Humans can be resurrected as we are now trying to resurrect extinct animals. And there are undeniable evidence of reincarnation. Please see Scientific Proof of reincarnation:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

God Bless.:pray:

L67
06-24-2014, 10:54 PM
"L67 is right"

First of all, L67 is the LAST person anyone should trust when it comes to arguing anything having to do with the bible. The guy even denies the historical *FACT* that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person. And then he has the nerve to mock CWH for his skepticism of evolution by pointing out that the majority of scientists accept evolution. I guess somebody forgot to tell him that creationism is WAY more represented among PhD scientists than Christ Mythicism is among academic historians :lol:

:lol: Gambini pipes in with some more of his moronic drivel. First of all, what historical FACT of Jesus? You don't have any evidence, nor have you ever presented any with your silly numbers game. Richard has already shown you to be a deluded moron.

Second, I never said Jesus didn't exist. Here is what I told Toxon just a few days ago. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5871-Is-God-a-just-judge&p=64127#post64127 No, I stopped believing because there is no evidence for the claims of the Bible. There is no historical evidence for any Yeshua/Jesus outside of any religious text. Could there have been a Yeshua/Jesus? Maybe. But, why no hard evidence for the most important person to ever walk this earth? We have hard evidence for Pilate who had direct contact with Jesus, but NOTHING on any messiah. All you have in the Bible is hearsay.

Try to get your facts straight before you spout off.


As far as evolution, you're too damn ignorant to even discuss it.


Anyways, Craig is 100% correct. The MAJORITY of translations support his rendering of the text. There's two reasons for that ...

1) The original Hebrew in that passage ALLOWS for that rendering.

2) The book of Judges ITSELF just got done telling you that the LORD stomped on Sisera and the 900 CHARIOTS OF IRON of Jabin in chapter four! DUH! ...

Judges 4:3 reads ... "And the children of Israel cried out to the LORD; for Jabin (the captain of Sisera) had 900 CHARIOTS OF IRON and for twenty years he had oppressed the children of Israel" ...

And Judges 4:15 reads "And *THE LORD* ROUTED Sisera and ALL his chariots and ALL his army with the edge of the sword".

Hence, the MAJORITY translation that Craig was referencing is *OBVIOUSLY* the accurate one because the book of Judges ITSELF just finished telling you that *THE LORD* defeated the IRON CHARIOTS of Jabin. The only question is why didn't God grant Judah a victory against the iron chariots in chapter 19. But that's not a problem biblically because the Torah FLAT OUT states that there are STIPULATIONS to having God back you up. That's why the entire OT is FILLED with examples of Israel FAILING.

No he's not and neither are you. The only thing that matters is the ACTUAL Hebrew words. Guess what moron? The Hebrew words do not say "they," nor does it speak in plural! It is speaking in a singular form about GOD Almighty not being able to drive the enemy from the plains.

Read it for yourself. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

I'm glad you brought up King Jabin because there is a nice contradiction to that story.

Was King Jabin killed by Joshua?

Joshua 11:1 11 When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Akshaph,

Joshua 11:10-11 10 At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.) 11 Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed[a] them, not sparing anyone that breathed, and he burned Hazor itself.

Judges 1 tells us of Joshuas death 1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the Lord, “Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Canaanites?

Now we move ahead to Judges 4:2 to find King Jabin still alive after Joshuas death. 2 So the Lord sold them into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. Sisera, the commander of his army, was based in Harosheth Haggoyim

Then in Judges 4:24 it is the Israelites who killed King Jabin. 23 On that day God subdued Jabin king of Canaan before the Israelites. 24 And the hand of the Israelites pressed harder and harder against Jabin king of Canaan until they destroyed him.

So who killed King Jabin?


Oh wait, there is more.

Joshua 11 tells us that Joshua destroyed the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites. Josha 11:8 8 and the Lord gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left. 9 Joshua did to them as the Lord had directed: He hamstrung their horses and burned their chariots.

Joshua 11:12-15 12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.

Joshua 24:11 tells us God delivered these cities in the hands of Joshua. 11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but I gave them into your hands.

And then in Judges 1 the Israelites say this 1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the Lord, “Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Canaanites?”

Ummm... what? Did Joshua the destroy the Canaanites or not? The book of Joshua clearly says everything that breathed was killed. Go ahead and explain this one away with your deluded nonsense.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-24-2014, 11:06 PM
Materialism NECESSARILY entails that EVERY thought is *GIVEN* to you as a deterministic result of a chain reaction of mindless atoms. Hence, there is no such thing as choice in your worldview. Hence, you DON'T have an objective moral foundation because your moral foundation is dependant on REASON, which is inconsistent with materialism (since reason NECESSITATES the ability to be able to CHOOSE between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition). Hence, all your moral critiques are utterly meaningless. And even worse ...

THERE ARE NO *PERSONS* UNDER MATERIALISM. If all you are is a configuration of atoms, then you're a DIFFERENT "person" every single day (since your body changes daily at the atomic level). The entire concept of the continuity of personhood loses all meaning. In fact, you have an entire NEW set of atoms every seven years! Further, your moral theory is supposed to be rooted in *LOVE*, no? Well, that's also inconsistent with your materialistic worldview! LOVE is utterly meaningless if all your thoughts are nothing more than a deterministic result of a causal chain reaction of chemical reactions reacting by NECESSITY (which is NECESSARILY the case under materialism). Besides ...

Your assertions are logically incoherent. First, you assert that materialism implies there is a person you refer to as "you" to whom is give "every thought" and then you assert that there are no "persons" under materialism.

Your assertion that there can be no "persons" under materialism because the atoms change is false because the person is the pattern, like a standing wave in water, not the physical substance. The wave remains dynamically stable even as the atoms that make it up constantly change.

Your arguments against materialism look like ignorant caricatures to me. It is clear you have never given any serious thought to the philosophies you reject. It looks like you reject them with superficial sophistry because they contradict your incoherent religious dogmas, such as the "soul/body" dualism that is now rejected by the vast majority of informed thinkers.

Rose
06-25-2014, 07:48 AM
All people are entitled to equal human rights based on merits and abilities and equal opportunities.

God Bless.:pray:

That's just great Cheow! Under your system someone who is compromised in their abilities because of a birth defect, and has low merits because of being born poor would be denied equal human rights? Your standard for human rights sounds just like male-biased Biblegod, who values females less than males, so consequently they have lower merits and less human rights. :mad:

Under my system and the system laid out in the U.D.H.R. the fact that you are born human entitles you to equal human rights. :thumb:

I knew you didn't really believe in equal human rights, that's why you couldn't take my challenge and write the statement "All people are entitled to equal human rights".


Rose

Rose
06-25-2014, 08:03 AM
Same as secular laws throughout the world which is based on norms in which some people may get away for drug trafficking with a fine and others death sentence; it all depends on situations and norms.

For the umpteenth time Cheow I am not talking about secular laws ... this whole thread is about the unjust nature of biblical laws. Everyone knows that governments make bad and unfair laws, so I don't know why you keep comparing secular laws to biblical laws, unless you think the laws in the Bible were written by men like I do. :p

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Gambini
06-25-2014, 08:00 PM
"I never said Jesus didn't exist; try to get your facts straight before you spout off"

Try to pay attention the next time you pop off. I never said that you said Jesus never existed. I SAID that you deny the historical *FACT* that Jesus existed. See the difference, dummy? In other words, it is a historical *FACT* that Jesus existed, and yet you claim it's possible Jesus never existed. Hence, you're a loon. A kook. A flat earther.


The drug induced fairytale that Jesus never existed is just plain silly ...

1) Virtually ALL historians of the NT (including secular historians) affirm the historicity of Jesus and would all dismiss you as a QUACK for claiming it's "possible" Jesus never existed. These are the *EXPERTS* in the field. Saying that the man Jesus was a historical person is a metaphysically NEUTRAL statement. So why would the very experts in the field (many of whom are ATHEISTS) affirm the historicity of Jesus if there was no evidence for it???

2) There are over 20 EXTRA BIBLICAL references confirming the historicity of Jesus that were written within 150 years of his death. This is better than virtually ANY personage of antiquity. If you count the NT (most of which are EPISTLES), it's nearly 30 (with the earliest being written a mere TWO DECADES after his death, which again is also better than virtually ANY personage of antiquity). All the objections you Christ Mythicists come up with are just laughable. For example, Tacitus (the GREATEST of Roman historians) CLEARLY mentions the historical Jesus. Pliny the Younger CLEARLY mentions the historical Jesus. It's funny listening to you nutballs try and twist their words to make it sound like they didn't actually mean that Jesus was an actual person.

3) Why would a group of strict orthodox Jews in the first century (the earliest Christians were Jews and Jews made up a substantial percentage of Christians during the first three centuries of Christianity) abandon their Mosaic traditions for a messiah WHO NEVER EVEN EXISTED???

4) The life of Christ is nothing like what one would expect if he was an invention of first century Jews. The Jews were expecting a conquering messiah. Why would they invent a messiah who is brutally crucified by the Romans??? And why would they portray THEMSELVES as rejecting the messiah???

5) Why would an entire movement of ppl in the first century be willing to be TORTURED and killed for a messiah who never even existed???

6) Why did no one ever even claim that Jesus never existed until some ass clown smoked some fire ass weed in the 18th century and made up the idea??? We have DEBATES between Christians and non-Christians from the 2nd and 3rd century and not ONCE did anyone ever claim that Jesus wasn't a historical person. They would argue against his deity or his title as messiah, not his historicity as an actual person.

7) Why did the early Christians (Justin Martyr for example) appeal to OPEN Roman records when referencing a historical point about Jesus during their debates??? If they just made that up, then they would be immediately exposed by their opponents.

8) We know the APOSTLES existed. For example, Philip's tomb has been discovered (it was found in the very town tradition says he was buried, dates to his time and contains writing verifying it as the tomb of Philip). This discovery was announced all over the news. Further, Paul himself MET with the apostles (nobody denies Paul wrote Galatians). So the question is if the apostles existed, what makes you think their LEADER didn't???

9) Can you give me a SINGLE example of a mythical figure from ancient history who was said to have living siblings??? Jesus had a COUSIN (John the Baptist, whom we KNOW existed through Josephus). Jesus had half brothers and sisters. In fact, one of his half brothers was a LEADER of the early church in JERUSALEM (the very city where Jesus was crucified). Give me another mythical figure from ancient history who had a cousin and half brothers/sisters.

10) If the vast kingdom that Alexander the Great left behind points to him being an actual historical person, then the movement that Jesus of Nazareth left behind points to him being an actual historical person. And this isn't a flawed comparison at all btw. Why? Because there isn't a SHRED of writings about the life of Alexander the Great that was written WHILE HE WAS ALIVE. That's how stupid you Christ Mythicists are. You think that because we don't have a record of Jesus written WHILE HE WAS ALIVE on earth, it calls into question his historicity. In that case, virtually ALL of ancient history should be tossed out. Virtually all personages of antiquity don't have any record that was produced while they were alive. DUH!!! ...

We have coins with the image of Alexander the Great, but so what? Somebody could argue that's just images of a mythical god. After all, we don't have any record of Alexander the Great that was produced WHILE HE WAS ALIVE. So he obviously didn't exist, RIGHT??? Why do you have a problem with a peasant rabbi not having a record of his life that was produced while he walked the earth but you DON'T have a problem with a man who conquered virtually THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD not having a written record that was produced while he was alive???

CWH
06-25-2014, 08:31 PM
That's just great Cheow! Under your system someone who is compromised in their abilities because of a birth defect, and has low merits because of being born poor would be denied equal human rights? Your standard for human rights sounds just like male-biased Biblegod, who values females less than males, so consequently they have lower merits and less human rights. :mad:

Under my system and the system laid out in the U.D.H.R. the fact that you are born human entitles you to equal human rights. :thumb:

I knew you didn't really believe in equal human rights, that's why you couldn't take my challenge and write the statement "All people are entitled to equal human rights".


Rose
Same as I put to you, those who are ugly, invalid, insane, mentally defective will have no chance or romance and marriage, Hoe are you to ensure that these people enjoy equal human rights that they can enjoy romance and married to the ones they loved.

Same as I put it to you, will the wealthy share all their wealth with the poor so that everyone is equally wealthy and there is no poverty in this world? Is this possible?

The human right of equal pay for equal work is based on meritocracy. If one works more, he is entitled to be paid more, same as everyone who did so. In meritocratic system, the one who have more are to help those who have less. This is not compulsory but personal.

In the bible, females are given equal attention based on merits; they requires more infant care and protection than males, the women look after the family while the men provide for them. They are considered helper to the men not because they are less important but equally important so that if the men are incapacitated, they took over the role of looking after the family. They are helper in the sense that the men needs them as they needed the men, same as a manager in the company needs the workers. Both are important and they need each other in running the company.

In life there are in equalities everywhere. Inequality is good if they harmonized with each other differences which I see in yin and yang principle.....black, white... cold, hot...night, day...male,female...summer, winter etc. These difference in inequality are necessary and they combine together harmoniously. In other words, inequality is good if it harmonized and balance well. A rich man who shares his wealth with the poor is good but a rich man who is selfishly greedy for wealth is bad. Therefore, male and female harmonizing with each other using their natural differences and abilities is good for the society.

What I am trying to say is Equal rights for all is not so simple and it is humanly impossible but nothing is impossible with God and therefore wait for God who is defined as a super intelligent and powerful force to help us achieve the impossible. So don't waste time to chase after an impossible dream but meanwhile just do those that seems achievable and to concentrate on meeting basic needs first. Equal human rights is a higher need and cannot be achieved without meeting the basic needs like food, shelter, safety first. Therefore, the first step in achieving equal human rights is to meet the basic needs first by giving equal opportunity so that they can achieve their higher needs.

Your equal human rights system is based on what I call Same, Same, what you have I also should have. My equal human rights system is on equal opportunity....You reap what you sow. That is fair and equal.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-25-2014, 08:39 PM
For the umpteenth time Cheow I am not talking about secular laws ... this whole thread is about the unjust nature of biblical laws. Everyone knows that governments make bad and unfair laws, so I don't know why you keep comparing secular laws to biblical laws, unless you think the laws in the Bible were written by men like I do. :p

All people are entitled to equal human rights,

Rose

Humans are like gods. Remember "ye are gods"; man is made in God's image. Therefore human-made laws seem unfair same as the biblical laws. Yet the laws are acceptable by the public in their own area or country even if it is deemed unfair and ridiculous and thus binding; and whoever breaks the law shall face the punishment according to the law. Simple as that.

All people are entitled to equal human rights based on merits and equal opportunity. You reap what you sow; do unto others what you want others to do unto you. Equal and fair.

God Bless.:pray:

Gambini
06-25-2014, 08:52 PM
"The only thing that matters is the ACTUAL Hebrew words"

Yes, and those ACTUAL Hebrew words *ALLOW* for the rendering "THEY". That's why almost ALL translations render it as "THEY". And I already refuted your claim because a mere THREE CHAPTERS LATER, we're told that it was SPECIFICALLY The LORD who defeated an army of 900 IRON CHARIOTS. Hence, the common rendering of "THEY" (referring to Judah) in Judges 1:19 is OBVIOUSLY the accurate translation.


"So who killed King Jabin?"

Ugh ... Genius, archaeology shows that "JABIN" is a dynastic name for a series of kings (rather than the one time use of a single king). The carrying on of dynastic names was common in antiquity ...

There are THREE extrabiblical references to JABIN and they span a period of 500 years (1700 - 1200 BC)! Two of them are letters addressed to JABIN as king and the third is a list of Canaanite place names at the temple of Karnak, which refers to Qishon of JABIN. Hence, Joshua and Judges is dealing with two DIFFERENT kings called JABIN that are nearly 200 years apart. Just as Thutmoses and Ramaases was a dynasty of kings (for example, there were 11 different kings in Egypt with the name Ramaases), so JABIN was a Canaanite dynasty of kings, which is backed up by the fact that we have THREE extrabiblical references to JABIN spanning a period of 500 years. And notice the authors of Joshua and Judges were aware of the JABIN dynasty, which dates back over 3,200 years.


"Did Joshua destroy the Canaanites or not?"

The two Canaanite kingdoms east of Jordan were completely destroyed, BUT the Canaanites on the west were not. Thutmose III claimed over 350 cities in Canaan paid him tribute (clearly there were many Canaanite cities). Joshua 12 only lists 31 conquered Canaanite kings (the rest of the Canaanites either deserted the remaining cities or were driven out *LATER*). So yes, Joshua destroyed SPECIFIC Canaanite cities, not the Canaanites in general. That's why there was still war with the Canaanites AFTER Joshua died.

Gambini
06-25-2014, 09:45 PM
"Your assertions are logically incoherent. First, you assert that materialism implies there is a person you refer to as "you" to whom is given "every thought" and then you assert that there are no "persons" under materialism"

1) It's not an assertion. It's an ARGUMENT. Materialism NECESSARILY entails that all of our thoughts (and hence, all of our "choices") are a result of a causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by chemical necessity. Since reason is impossible without the ability to freely choose between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition, it follows that Rose's moral theory is ARBITRARILY rooted in the specific atomic processes going off in her head (I don't mean that in a disrespectful way). Further, her definition of "humanness" is ARBITRARY. Hence, her moral theory is arbitrary because she claims it is rooted in "humanness".

2) Nothing I said is "incoherent". The point is that even if I granted that personhood was consistent with materialism (which I DON'T), it still follows that all of our thoughts would be the result of a causal chain of chemical reactions reacting by chemical necessity. And this renders the ability to reason and even LOVE itself utterly meaningless.


"Your assertion that there can be no "persons" under materialism because the atoms change is false because the person is the pattern"

I'm saying the CONTINUITY of personhood loses all meaning because materialism reduces EVERYTHING to matter. Hence, we are nothing more than matter. And our "pattern" is constantly changing at the atomic level. Again, we have an entirely NEW set of atoms every seven years! So why should someone be held responsible for something that happened seven years ago??? NO PRESENT PART OF ME was even present in whatever "I" did seven years ago. Every neuron in my brain had a completely different set of atoms.


Anyways, the personhood thing is really a secondary issue. My main point is that Rose's moral theory is completely arbitrary (since reason itself is inconsistent under materialism AND her definition of "humanness" is demonstrably arbitrary). Therefore, her moral criticisms of the bible are meaningless.


BINI

L67
06-25-2014, 10:53 PM
"I never said Jesus didn't exist; try to get your facts straight before you spout off"

Try to pay attention the next time you pop off. I never said that you said Jesus never existed. I SAID that you deny the historical *FACT* that Jesus existed. See the difference, dummy? In other words, it is a historical *FACT* that Jesus existed, and yet you claim it's possible Jesus never existed. Hence, you're a loon. A kook. A flat earther.


Wow, you're dumb. How can I deny the historical fact that Jesus existed, when I said it was possible he did exist? I neither affirmed or denied his existence. How freaking idiotic are you?


The drug induced fairytale that Jesus never existed is just plain silly ...

1) Virtually ALL historians of the NT (including secular historians) affirm the historicity of Jesus and would all dismiss you as a QUACK for claiming it's "possible" Jesus never existed. These are the *EXPERTS* in the field. Saying that the man Jesus was a historical person is a metaphysically NEUTRAL statement. So why would the very experts in the field (many of whom are ATHEISTS) affirm the historicity of Jesus if there was no evidence for it???

The reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Period. We have evidence for Pilate who had direct contact with Jesus, but NOTHING outside of religious text.


2) There are over 20 EXTRA BIBLICAL references confirming the historicity of Jesus that were written within 150 years of his death. This is better than virtually ANY personage of antiquity. If you count the NT (most of which are EPISTLES), it's nearly 30 (with the earliest being written a mere TWO DECADES after his death, which again is also better than virtually ANY personage of antiquity). All the objections you Christ Mythicists come up with are just laughable. For example, Tacitus (the GREATEST of Roman historians) CLEARLY mentions the historical Jesus. Pliny the Younger CLEARLY mentions the historical Jesus. It's funny listening to you nutballs try and twist their words to make it sound like they didn't actually mean that Jesus was an actual person.


Nonsense! Post these 20 extra Biblical references. It's obvious you don't have anything or else you would have posted it.

Let me enlighten your dumbass on something. Tacitus makes a reference about Jesus. That's it. It doesn't prove he was divine or that he was the son of God. And worse, the original Tacitus Annals Books 11 – 16 that make reference to Jesus are lost. All we have are copies written centuries later. And there is absolutely no proof they are word for word copies of the originals and especially given the time period of Christian forgeries. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

And another fact is, that Tacitus was born 20 years AFTER Jesus died, 2,000 miles away. Also, he didn't write his Annals until 116D. That is roughly 86 years AFTER Jesus died Please, get real. Tacitus is NOT proof of any historical Jesus.

Pliny the Youngers reference is even worse. They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

It doesn't mention Jesus by name at all. This was not even a reference to Christ, but to Christians. Christ could have referred to any of the other "christs" that were being followed by the Jews who thought they found the messiah.

Please come up with better material. Your evidence sucks.


3) Why would a group of strict orthodox Jews in the first century (the earliest Christians were Jews and Jews made up a substantial percentage of Christians during the first three centuries of Christianity) abandon their Mosaic traditions for a messiah WHO NEVER EVEN EXISTED???

The same reason there were followers of Mithraism. Which predates Christianity btw . And the similarities are shockingly similar.

Mithra was born of a virgin, born Dec 25, died for our sins, had 12 disciples, a last supper, was called the son of God, was crucified, rose from the dead on the 3rd day, and returned to heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mi thraism_and_Christianity

Christianity is NOT original and is certainly not the first to make "claims" of a miraculous "messiah".


4) The life of Christ is nothing like what one would expect if he was an invention of first century Jews. The Jews were expecting a conquering messiah. Why would they invent a messiah who is brutally crucified by the Romans??? And why would they portray THEMSELVES as rejecting the messiah???

The same reason Mithra was created and the same reasons Muslims wrote the Quran.


5) Why would an entire movement of ppl in the first century be willing to be TORTURED and killed for a messiah who never even existed???

Delusion. People have willingly died for causes throughout history.


6) Why did no one ever even claim that Jesus never existed until some ass clown smoked some fire ass weed in the 18th century and made up the idea??? We have DEBATES between Christians and non-Christians from the 2nd and 3rd century and not ONCE did anyone ever claim that Jesus wasn't a historical person. They would argue against his deity or his title as messiah, not his historicity as an actual person.

You don't know your history. Because there WERE those that did. – http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm

Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD): 'Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'

The Christians of the day were so threatend by this that they burned every copy of his writings.


7) Why did the early Christians (Justin Martyr for example) appeal to OPEN Roman records when referencing a historical point about Jesus during their debates??? If they just made that up, then they would be immediately exposed by their opponents.

Yea, right. Go up against the church? Please get real.


8) We know the APOSTLES existed. For example, Philip's tomb has been discovered (it was found in the very town tradition says he was buried, dates to his time and contains writing verifying it as the tomb of Philip). This discovery was announced all over the news. Further, Paul himself MET with the apostles (nobody denies Paul wrote Galatians). So the question is if the apostles existed, what makes you think their LEADER didn't???

No we don't. That is NOT necessarily the Apostle Philips tomb. There was a Philip the Evangelist mentioned in the Bible who is said to have died in Hierapolis, exactly where the suppose Apostle Philips tomb was found.

Acts 6:1-7 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Acts 21:8-9 8 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

There is absolutely no way to verify which one it was.



9) Can you give me a SINGLE example of a mythical figure from ancient history who was said to have living siblings??? Jesus had a COUSIN (John the Baptist, whom we KNOW existed through Josephus). Jesus had half brothers and sisters. In fact, one of his half brothers was a LEADER of the early church in JERUSALEM (the very city where Jesus was crucified). Give me another mythical figure from ancient history who had a cousin and half brothers/sisters.

Krishna had 7 siblings.

Again, Josephus was born AFTER Jesus had died. There is no way Josephus could have known about Jesus from his own personal experience. Acknowledging John the Bapist doesn't suggest Jesus was a REAL person. He COULD have been real, but nobody knows for certain.


10) If the vast kingdom that Alexander the Great left behind points to him being an actual historical person, then the movement that Jesus of Nazareth left behind points to him being an actual historical person. And this isn't a flawed comparison at all btw. Why? Because there isn't a SHRED of writings about the life of Alexander the Great that was written WHILE HE WAS ALIVE. That's how stupid you Christ Mythicists are. You think that because we don't have a record of Jesus written WHILE HE WAS ALIVE on earth, it calls into question his historicity. In that case, virtually ALL of ancient history should be tossed out. Virtually all personages of antiquity don't have any record that was produced while they were alive. DUH!!! ...


If you are going to call someone stupid you could at least know what you are talking about. This is a load of horseshit.

Every nation, regardless of creed or belief, he marched into documented him. The evidence for Alexander is NOTHING like that of Jesus. The stories of Jesus are from one culture and a single group. And the stories were written years after his death. Alexanders campaigns are documented while he was still alive.





We have coins with the image of Alexander the Great, but so what? Somebody could argue that's just images of a mythical god. After all, we don't have any record of Alexander the Great that was produced WHILE HE WAS ALIVE. So he obviously didn't exist, RIGHT??? Why do you have a problem with a peasant rabbi not having a record of his life that was produced while he walked the earth but you DON'T have a problem with a man who conquered virtually THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD not having a written record that was produced while he was alive???

I know the truth hurts Gambini. Coins of Alexander are still more physical evidence than there is for Jesus. But there is written record of Alexander while he was alive. Go search for it.

Also, I'll leave this here with you. The early church was full of liars and they are the ones responsible for bringing you the Bible as you know it.



"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."



– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

How about Eusebius in the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:



"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."



Here is more from Eusebius:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.



Clement of Alexandria- one of the earliest church fathers: :

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)


John Chrysostom: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.



Faustus- Manichean bishop: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."




Ignatius Loyola -founder of the Society of Jesus[Jesuits]: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."



Saint Jerome: 'To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another ... Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful.'

– St Jerome, c. 380.



– Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD): 'Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'


The Christians of the day were so threatend by this that they burned every copy of his writings.

Rose
06-26-2014, 07:54 AM
Humans are like gods. Remember "ye are gods"; man is made in God's image. Therefore human-made laws seem unfair same as the biblical laws. Yet the laws are acceptable by the public in their own area or country even if it is deemed unfair and ridiculous and thus binding; and whoever breaks the law shall face the punishment according to the law. Simple as that.

The Bible contains laws that are immoral, unjust and biased given by the Biblegod, therefore it should not be used as a moral guidebook.



All people are entitled to equal human rights based on merits and equal opportunity. You reap what you sow; do unto others what you want others to do unto you. Equal and fair.

God Bless.:pray:

Your ignorance is astounding! You cannot call it equal human rights if it's based on merits! That is contradictory!

If we have equal rights based on being human, then you can't say that those rights are based on merits ... it makes NO SENSE! We are all EQUALLY HUMAN that's why it's called EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

For the record: Cheow DOES NOT believe in equal human rights, he believes in human rights BASED ON MERITS.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-26-2014, 09:32 AM
Same as I put to you, those who are ugly, invalid, insane, mentally defective will have no chance or romance and marriage, How are you to ensure that these people enjoy equal human rights that they can enjoy romance and married to the ones they loved.

Under the declaration of equal human rights EVERYONE has a chance to find a marriage partner ... it doesn't matter if they are homosexuals, ugly or otherwise handicapped.


Same as I put it to you, will the wealthy share all their wealth with the poor so that everyone is equally wealthy and there is no poverty in this world? Is this possible?

The human right of equal pay for equal work is based on meritocracy. If one works more, he is entitled to be paid more, same as everyone who did so. In meritocratic system, the one who have more are to help those who have less. This is not compulsory but personal.

Equal human rights is not about the wealthy equally sharing their wealth with the poor. Equal human rights is about affording all people the same opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unlike your system which bases peoples rights on merit ... just like the Bible does.


In the bible, females are given equal attention based on merits; they requires more infant care and protection than males, the women look after the family while the men provide for them. They are considered helper to the men not because they are less important but equally important so that if the men are incapacitated, they took over the role of looking after the family. They are helper in the sense that the men needs them as they needed the men, same as a manager in the company needs the workers. Both are important and they need each other in running the company.

That's right! In the Bible women's rights are based on merit, and the male-biased mindset of the Bible declares women of lesser value and merit then men, consequently they are denied equal human rights!


In life there are in equalities everywhere. Inequality is good if they harmonized with each other differences which I see in yin and yang principle.....black, white... cold, hot...night, day...male,female...summer, winter etc. These difference in inequality are necessary and they combine together harmoniously. In other words, inequality is good if it harmonized and balance well. A rich man who shares his wealth with the poor is good but a rich man who is selfishly greedy for wealth is bad. Therefore, male and female harmonizing with each other using their natural differences and abilities is good for the society.

Of course there are inequalities everywhere, but that IS NOT what I am talking about ... are you so dense you still don't understand that? :banghead: A man's body is different from a woman's body because he can't give birth ... does that mean he should be denied equal human rights? Of course not!

All people share the quality of being human, and as such are entitled to equal human rights!



What I am trying to say is Equal rights for all is not so simple and it is humanly impossible but nothing is impossible with God and therefore wait for God who is defined as a super intelligent and powerful force to help us achieve the impossible. So don't waste time to chase after an impossible dream but meanwhile just do those that seems achievable and to concentrate on meeting basic needs first. Equal human rights is a higher need and cannot be achieved without meeting the basic needs like food, shelter, safety first. Therefore, the first step in achieving equal human rights is to meet the basic needs first by giving equal opportunity so that they can achieve their higher needs.

Human rights seems to be pretty basic and simple when you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it seems to be impossible for the Biblegod. :lol: It's bigoted men like you who try and complicate things by basing human rights on merits!


Your equal human rights system is based on what I call Same, Same, what you have I also should have. My equal human rights system is on equal opportunity....You reap what you sow. That is fair and equal.

God Bless.:pray:

My idea of equal human rights is based on the same reasoning and logic as the intelligent members of the global community who wrote the U.D.H.R., thus every person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... equality no matter what your gender, race or sexual preference is.

Your idea of human rights is based on merits, gender or sexual preference, just like the Bible ... thus if a person is female, homosexual, or handicapped they are denied equal human rights ... shame, shame :nono: :nono:

All people are entitled to equal human rights based on the fact that they are human,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
06-26-2014, 03:57 PM
Hi Craig,

L67 is right, if you look at the Hebrew (I checked my Hebrew Interlinear Bible) in Judges 1:19 the word "they" does not appear. The other translations probably inserted "they" because it seemed more plausible than "he".

Aside from that, it clearly states that the Lord was with Judah, so if that is the case why couldn't they drive out the inhabitants with god's help, since it says he was with them?


So it would appear that all translations from Hebrew are mistaken? ?

In the first sentence there are two persons to whom "he" could apply - the Lord or Judah. So your suggestion that it is the Lord who is referred to is only 50% possibly true.

It would have been better for L67 to provide a more definitive example.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-26-2014, 04:24 PM
According to the Bible, an enemy isn't always someone who has attacked you ... sometime it is merely because they occupy land and possess goods that you think your god has given you.

Hi Rose,

As Deuteronomy 20 indicates, there were 7 tribes that the Hebrews were commanded to utterly destroy - not leaving anything alive that breathed. This policy is very specific, and DID not apply to any other tribes. However, in relation to all other tribes, the Israelites were commanded to spare the women and children, and also spare the men if they surrendered.

Your suggestion is that the motive for this difference in policy was simply utter ruthless greed for the land occupied by the 7 tribes. However, if the motive were greed, then it is odd that the greed should only be directed at a small collection of named tribes and not at others in their immediate proximity.

And it is quite possible to acquire other people's land without having to utterly destroy them. When the conquering nations of antiquity usurped other lands they did so without absolutely annihilating them. So, why the command to eradicate everything that breathed, including the animals? Greed would surely require one to keep the animals and women at least. What could have also infected the animals as to require their annihilation?

The passage explicitly states that absolute destruction must be poured out upon these 7 tribes because of the corrupting influence of their spiritual practices - as exemplified in the incident of Sodom and Gomorrah. These practices had somehow affected the animals themselves as well.

This does not sound like a normal situation of greed to me.





Craig

Rose
06-26-2014, 05:15 PM
Hi Rose,

As Deuteronomy 20 indicates, there were 7 tribes that the Hebrews were commanded to utterly destroy - not leaving anything alive that breathed. This policy is very specific, and DID not apply to any other tribes. However, in relation to all other tribes, the Israelites were commanded to spare the women and children, and also spare the men if they surrendered.

Your suggestion is that the motive for this difference in policy was simply utter ruthless greed for the land occupied by the 7 tribes. However, if the motive were greed, then it is odd that the greed should only be directed at a small collection of named tribes and not at others in their immediate proximity.

And it is quite possible to acquire other people's land without having to utterly destroy them. When the conquering nations of antiquity usurped other lands they did so without absolutely annihilating them. So, why the command to eradicate everything that breathed, including the animals? Greed would surely require one to keep the animals and women at least. What could have also infected the animals as to require their annihilation?

The passage explicitly states that absolute destruction must be poured out upon these 7 tribes because of the corrupting influence of their spiritual practices - as exemplified in the incident of Sodom and Gomorrah. These practices had somehow affected the animals themselves as well.

This does not sound like a normal situation of greed to me.





Craig

Hello Craig :yo:

A good place to start is in Deuteronomy 6 and 7. In these passages not only does the Lord declare that he will give the Hebrews cities, houses, wells, trees and vineyards which they did not earn (the greed factor), but they are also commanded to utterly destroy all the people (this particular verse doesn't say anything about slaughtering all the animals), showing them NO MERCY!

Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;

Deut.7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.




What do you make of these verses?

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose
06-26-2014, 07:34 PM
So it would appear that all translations from Hebrew are mistaken? ?

In the first sentence there are two persons to whom "he" could apply - the Lord or Judah. So your suggestion that it is the Lord who is referred to is only 50% possibly true.

It would have been better for L67 to provide a more definitive example.

Hi Craig

You are correct that "he" could apply to Judah as well as to the Lord, though in the context of the sentence it seems more likely that it applies to the Lord, since the verse is speaking of the Lord being with Judah. Either way you look at it the Lord was still unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of their iron chariots.



Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

CWH
06-26-2014, 08:09 PM
Hi Craig

You are correct that "he" could apply to Judah as well as to the Lord, though in the context of the sentence it seems more likely that it applies to the Lord, since the verse is speaking of the Lord being with Judah. Either way you look at it the Lord was still unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of their iron chariots.



Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.



We know that God played a supporting indirect role in the Israelite wars. Obviously, God would be able to destroy the enemy if God wanted to whether they have iron chariots or not. It is much easier to understand if you use an analogy:

[INDENT]Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Analogous to:

"The US(supporting role) is with Israel in the Middle East War and they drove out Palestinians but they could not drive out the Arabs because they have tanks".

The following could be the reasons why they cannot drive out the enemy because of the tanks:

1. the US did not give enough support to Israel for some reasons such as political or decisional conflicts with Israel
2. the US did not want Israel to attack the Arabs because they has stronger weapons but Israel still goes ahead on their own
3. the US has an alternative military plan because the Arabs have stronger weapons but Israel decided to follow their original plan.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-26-2014, 08:31 PM
The Bible contains laws that are immoral, unjust and biased given by the Biblegod, therefore it should not be used as a moral guidebook.




Your ignorance is astounding! You cannot call it equal human rights if it's based on merits! That is contradictory!

If we have equal rights based on being human, then you can't say that those rights are based on merits ... it makes NO SENSE! We are all EQUALLY HUMAN that's why it's called EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

For the record: Cheow DOES NOT believe in equal human rights, he believes in human rights BASED ON MERITS.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,


Yo can have beautiful plans and declarations but if it is not workable or achievable, it is Useless! It is important to deal with first things first and that is basic human rights to food, shelter, safety before you can strive for equal human rights or else in will be a failure.

I believe in human rights and that each person must be given equal opportunity and freedom to achieve those human rights. One cannot depend on others to achieve those human rights for them but they must do that on their own merits. But first of all they must deal with meeting their basic human rights first such as right to food, shelter, safety so that higher needs of equal human rights can be easier to achieve. This is humanly impossible knowing that 80% of the world's population is living below poverty line.

The reason why Rose disagree with me is that she thinks Equal human rights is so easy to achieve without using own efforts and sacrifice as if dropped from heaven. Get Real. Thinking of all the obstacles and the statistics is enough to tell us it is humanly impossible to achieve all the equal human rights. And do you think all people loves the UDHR and will follow them strictly? No. That is why some countries refused to sign the UDHR and some only give lip service to the UDHR.

All people are entitled to equal human rights based on equal opportunity on their own merits. We should deal with the basic human rights first and not Equal human rights first.

God Bless.:pray:

Gambini
06-26-2014, 08:35 PM
"How can I deny the historical fact that Jesus existed, when I said it was possible he did exist?"

You cannot be this stupid ... Oh wait a minute ... You're a Christ Mythicist. That explains it LOL! ...

I'm not going to repeat myself again so PAY ATTENTION. I didn't say that you deny that Jesus existed. What I SAID was that you deny that it is a historical fact that Jesus existed. Now if you can't tell the difference between those two, then you need help.


"Post these 20 extra Biblical references. It's obvious you don't have anything or else you would have posted it"

Why would I post the OVER 20 extrabiblical references to Jesus (written within 150 years of his life, which is BETTER than virtually ALL historical personages of antiquity) when you won't even accept CLEAR references to the historical Jesus from Tacitus or Pliny the Younger? You're a kook. That's why virtually all secular historians laugh at your bullshit conspiracy theories. You are absolutely clueless as to how history even works. You actually think that historicity *DEPENDS* on contemporaneous written accounts LOL!!! Idiot, do you understand that virtually ALL personages of antiquity do *NOT* have surviving written records that were produced during their lifetime??? What part of that do you not understand? Virtually ALL the written records we have were written AFTER the person died! You don't know shit.


"Tacitus makes a reference about Jesus. That's it"

That's all that's needed, genius. If you have two independent sources referencing the same individual, then that establishes historicity. Tacitus is an ENEMY of Christianity. So the fact that he mentions the historical Jesus is clear attestation to his historicity.


"It doesn't prove he was divine or that he was the son of God"

Dummy, who in the hell said that Tacitus proves that Jesus was divine??? I just got done telling you that the *FACT* that Jesus existed was metaphysically NEUTRAL. That's why even ATHEIST historians grant that Jesus existed. You're giving me a damn headache dude. Your stupidity is astounding.


"All we have are copies written centuries later. And there is absolutely no proof they are word for word copies of the originals"

More stupidity. This is true of virtually ALL ancient works you stupid freak!!! Go check all the classics of antiquity. The earliest copies are hundreds of years (even over a THOUSAND years) from their autographs. So according to your own criteria, ALL of ancient history should be trashed LOL!!! Why are you so stupid, dude? Actually, using your criteria, the NT is the ONLY surviving work of antiquity that shouldn't be trashed since the copies we have of the NT are WAY closer to their autographs than ANY of the classical works. Therefore, ALL of secular history is INFERIOR to biblical history according to your OWN criteria.


"And another fact is, that Tacitus was born 20 years AFTER Jesus died, 2,000 miles away. Also, he didn't write his Annals until 116 AD. That is roughly 86 years AFTER Jesus died"

Again, this is true of virtually ALL personages of antiquity. You're an idiot. I'm sorry but it's true bro. Do you realize that the earliest surviving biographies of Alexander the Great were written *400* years AFTER he died??? I could list a shitload of personages of antiquity for whom the only surviving records we have of them were written HUNDREDS of years AFTER they died. I only mention Alexander the Great because he conquered virtually the entire known world.


"It doesn't mention Jesus by name at all. This was not even a reference to Christ, but to Christians"

You just admitted Pliny the Younger is speaking of CHRISTIANS. So OBVIOUSLY the "CHRIST" they prayed to is Jesus Christ. And he references the founder of this Christian sect as a HISTORICAL person.



"The same reason there were followers of Mithraism"

No, the Jews didn't INVENT Mithraism. You're making the ABSURD assertion that strict orthodox Jews abandoned their Mosaic traditions and INVENTED a Jewish messiah who didn't even exist.


"And the similarities are shockingly similar"

What's shocking is your utter stupidity. First of all, you started your response saying you don't deny Jesus existed. Now you're giving credence to a crackpot idea that has been refuted a MILLION damn times. This is old news. No decent atheist apologist would use this material you're spouting. ALL of the parallels are either trivial OR were adopted by the mystic cults in the 2nd century. In other words, as Christianity began to grow in popularity, the mystic cults began to adopt elements of Christianity. That's the point. Nobody denies the cults themselves predate Christianity, but the Christian elements they adopted were adopted AFTER the birth of Christianity.


"The same reason Mithra was created and the same reasons Muslims wrote the Quran"

This doesn't even explain what I said! I said why would a group of 1st century Jews INVENT a messiah that was brutally murdered by the Romans when the Jewish concept of the messiah was of a conquering king??? And again, Jews didn't invent Mithra.


"People have willingly died for causes throughout history"

Give me another example of a GROUP of people who were willing to be TORTURED and killed for a story they INVENTED and would have known was a lie.


"In fabricating the story of Jesus' birth"

Celsus is talking about the VIRGIN BIRTH!!! DUH! He *NEVER* says a word about Jesus not being a historical person. And he wrote an entire book arguing against Christianity! Nobody ever said anything about Jesus being a myth until AFTER the birth of antitheism in the French revolution. The idea was unheard of. And ever since the idea appeared, it was always rejected by historians.


"Yea, right. Go up against the church? Please get real"

IDIOT!!! Justin Martyr wrote his works in 150 AD!!! The church was powerless at that time. Justin Martyr is addressing his defense of Christianity to the EMPEROR Antoninius Pius and he refers him to HIS VERY OWN ROMAN ARCHIVES so he could verify the details regarding the life of Christ! The fact that these archives haven't survived isn't surprising considering the MAJORITY of ancient works in general have not survived. Let me guess, you didn't know that either?



"That is NOT necessarily the Apostle Philips tomb"

The inscriptions VERIFY it as the apostle Philip's tomb. And regardless, we KNOW the apostles existed for a thousand reasons. So the question remains: If the apostles existed, then what makes you think their LEADER didn't??? The only reason we know Socrates existed is because of his STUDENT. Well, the apostles were the STUDENTS of Jesus. And we know through Polycarp (the STUDENT of the apostle John) that John wrote his gospel.


"Krisha had 7 siblings"

I mean siblings whom we know were historical persons dude! We know John the Baptist was a historical person (through Josephus) and Jesus was the COUSIN of John the Baptist. We know that James, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church in the 1st century, was a historical person and he was the half brother of Jesus. Now can you give me a SINGLE example of an ancient mythical figure who had siblings that we know were historical persons???


"Alexander's campaigns are documented while he was still alive"

Wrong!!! There are no *SURVIVING* records that were written while he was alive. That is a *FACT*. Look it up. And this is true of virtually EVERY personage of antiquity as well btw.


"There is written record of Alexander while he was alive"

BULLSHIT!!! Not only isn't there a SHRED of any written record of Alexander the Great that was produced during his lifetime, virtually EVERYTHING we know about him comes from sources that were written *400* years AFTER he died!!! The ENTIRE New Testament was written within a mere 70 years of the crucifixion and Galatians (written by Paul, who MET with the apostles) was written a mere TWO DECADES after the crucifixion!!! ...

Plutarch lived from 46 to 120 AD and produced his record of Alexander the Great over *400* years AFTER his death ...

Arrian (author of "The most widely read account of Alexander the Great" according to Wikipedia) lived from 86 to 160 AD and produced his record of Alexander the Great over *460* years AFTER his death ...

Now are there IMAGES of Alexander the Great? Yes, but there are IMAGES of Jesus that date back to the 2nd century. So why don't you think it's "possible" that Alexander the Great is a mythical figure and that all his sculptures were just images of gods (the ancients made images of their gods all over the place)? After all, there are no SURVIVING accounts that were produced during his lifetime AND virtually EVERYTHING we know about him was written *400* years after he died. So we might as well start an Alexander Mythicist cult, right?

BTW, notice that even if you say the coins of Alexander the Great show he existed, it completely OBLITERATES your utterly absurd argument that we should expect written accounts of Jesus from his lifetime. Why? Because it would mean IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT CONQUERED VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD, there isn't a single SURVIVING record of him that was written during his lifetime.


As far as the quotes you put up of the church fathers, that's nothing more than cherry picking and misrepresentation of what they actually believed. And it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. If you go over each of the 10 points I listed, ALL of them are INDEPENDENT of whether or not the church fathers were honest. So it wouldn't help your case anyways.


This is my last post on this issue. Not only because your utter stupidity is annoying me, but because there is no debate. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is an established *FACT*. And again, this is a metaphysically NEUTRAL statement that is recognized by virtually ALL historians (even ATHEIST historians of the NT).

CWH
06-26-2014, 09:14 PM
Under the declaration of equal human rights EVERYONE has a chance to find a marriage partner ... it doesn't matter if they are homosexuals, ugly or otherwise handicapped.
You can have beautiful plan and declaration but if it is not practical and achievable, it is USELESS. If everyone is entitled to equal human rights to get married but how would you feel if you are in their shoes being ugly, imbecile, homosexuals, handicapped with no chance of a marriage....talk what Equal human rights to find a marriage partner!!




Equal human rights is not about the wealthy equally sharing their wealth with the poor. Equal human rights is about affording all people the same opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unlike your system which bases peoples rights on merit ... just like the Bible does.
That's the wisest thing that comes out from you mouth, Rose. :thumb: The Bible is about how to achieve life with happiness and achieve it abundantly and eternally. Follow what is taught in the Bible and you are not far from the Kingdom of heaven.


That's right! In the Bible women's rights are based on merit, and the male-biased mindset of the Bible declares women of lesser value and merit then men, consequently they are denied equal human rights!
Equal pay for equal work. No one will pay someone higher if the work is less "profitable" and responsible; a maid cannot get paid higher than her manager.
Everything in life is based on merits; you don't expect riches and luxuries to drop down from heaven but by your own efforts. God helps those who help themselves, You reap what you sow.


Of course there are inequalities everywhere, but that IS NOT what I am talking about ... are you so dense you still don't understand that? :banghead: A man's body is different from a woman's body because he can't give birth ... does that mean he should be denied equal human rights? Of course not!

All people share the quality of being human, and as such are entitled to equal human rights!

You are equally dense if you don't understand that we should make use of our own abilities and differences (i.e. inequalities) to work together to achieve common good goals. It's like yin and yang where everything harmonize in nature despite the opposites i.e. Unequal yet harmonize equally. That is what I see in equal human rights ...unequal yet harmonize equally.


Human rights seems to be pretty basic and simple when you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it seems to be impossible for the Biblegod. :lol: It's bigoted men like you who try and complicate things by basing human rights on merits!

My idea of equal human rights is based on the same reasoning and logic as the intelligent members of the global community who wrote the U.D.H.R., thus every person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... equality no matter what your gender, race or sexual preference is.

You are too naive; there too many obstacles to overcome to make UDHR successful. And you don't depend on others to achieve equal human rights for you but by your own effort! That is call MERITS. Funny, the theory of evolution using survival of the fittest and natural selection is unable to solve the problem of equal human rights for millions of years. And what progress have UDHR done in achieving equal human rights after more than 65 years since its launch in 1948?


Your idea of human rights is based on merits, gender or sexual preference, just like the Bible ... thus if a person is female, homosexual, or handicapped they are denied equal human rights ... shame, shame :nono: :nono:

The Bible allows human rights based on personal achievements. Don't expect to go into the Kingdom of Heaven for free unless you did the will of the Father who is in heaven.
If a person is imbecile, ugly, homosexual, or handicapped they are entitled equal human rights but cannot receive them and society rejects them, what good is the entitlement of equal human rights to them? The UDHR will be an insult to them. It goes the same to those 80% of the world's population who are living below poverty line, UDHR is useless and an insult to them because they cannot even meet their basic human rights to food, shelter, money, health and safety.

Better wait for a super intelligent force call God to make equal human rights a reality, abundantly and eternally. Humans just cannot achieve equal human rights on their own.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-26-2014, 10:17 PM
Yo can have beautiful plans and declarations but if it is not workable or achievable, it is Useless! It is important to deal with first things first and that is basic human rights to food, shelter, safety before you can strive for equal human rights or else in will be a failure.

You are confused. :confused2: Basic human rights are equal human rights ... they are one and the same thing! First it must be established that all people are entitled to equal human rights, then you set out to make sure those rights are implemented. Human rights are human rights.


I believe in human rights and that each person must be given equal opportunity and freedom to achieve those human rights. One cannot depend on others to achieve those human rights for them but they must do that on their own merits. But first of all they must deal with meeting their basic human rights first such as right to food, shelter, safety so that higher needs of equal human rights can be easier to achieve. This is humanly impossible knowing that 80% of the world's population is living below poverty line.

:clap2: You finally said it! Now, how do you justify what you just said with what the Bible teaches?

The Bible certainly does not teach that all people should be given freedom and equal opportunity.


The reason why Rose disagree with me is that she thinks Equal human rights is so easy to achieve without using own efforts and sacrifice as if dropped from heaven. Get Real. Thinking of all the obstacles and the statistics is enough to tell us it is humanly impossible to achieve all the equal human rights. And do you think all people loves the UDHR and will follow them strictly? No. That is why some countries refused to sign the UDHR and some only give lip service to the UDHR.

I never said equal human rights would be easy to achieve! I said every person is ENTITLED TO EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS!


All people are entitled to equal human rights based on equal opportunity on their own merits. We should deal with the basic human rights first and not Equal human rights first.

God Bless.:pray:


Basic human rights are equal human rights! They are one and the same!

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE THE RIGHTS THAT ALL HUMANS ARE ENTITLED TO!

IT IS IMMORAL TO VIOLATE A PERSONS HUMAN RIGHTS!

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-27-2014, 09:00 AM
.
You can have beautiful plan and declaration but if it is not practical and achievable, it is USELESS. If everyone is entitled to equal human rights to get married but how would you feel if you are in their shoes being ugly, imbecile, homosexuals, handicapped with no chance of a marriage....talk what Equal human rights to find a marriage partner!!

Just because someone is born ugly, handicapped or a homosexual does not mean they should be denied their equal human rights! You have the same mentality as the primitive, male-biased men who wrote the Bible. Over, and over again you have said that human rights are based on merits, which is exactly what the Bible says.

The Bible says that if you are born female, or you are born homosexual you are not entitled to the same human rights as a heterosexual man. That is immoral and wrong! The Bible does not allow the same rights and opportunities to women as it does to men, therefore it violates their human rights.

The foundation of morality is based on human rights, any act that violates a persons human rights is IMMORAL!

The Bible is filled with human rights violations decreed by its god, therefore the Biblegod is IMMORAL!


Equal pay for equal work. No one will pay someone higher if the work is less "profitable" and responsible; a maid cannot get paid higher than her manager.
Everything in life is based on merits; you don't expect riches and luxuries to drop down from heaven but by your own efforts. God helps those who help themselves, You reap what you sow.



NO! Human rights are not based on merits! How many times do I have to say that before it gets through to you?

All humans are born entitled to equal human rights, they do not have to earn those rights like you say.




You are too naive; there too many obstacles to overcome to make UDHR successful. And you don't depend on others to achieve equal human rights for you but by your own effort! That is call MERITS. Funny, the theory of evolution using survival of the fittest and natural selection is unable to solve the problem of equal human rights for millions of years. And what progress have UDHR done in achieving equal human rights after more than 65 years since its launch in 1948?

What you fail to understand is that a right is a right. It doesn't matter how many obstacles there are to achieving that right, it still remains a right that everyone is entitled to. From the get-go, the Bible outright denies women equal human rights with men ... it doesn't even give women a chance to achieve equal rights with men!


The Bible allows human rights based on personal achievements. Don't expect to go into the Kingdom of Heaven for free unless you did the will of the Father who is in heaven.
If a person is imbecile, ugly, homosexual, or handicapped they are entitled equal human rights but cannot receive them and society rejects them, what good is the entitlement of equal human rights to them? The UDHR will be an insult to them. It goes the same to those 80% of the world's population who are living below poverty line, UDHR is useless and an insult to them because they cannot even meet their basic human rights to food, shelter, money, health and safety.

Better wait for a super intelligent force call God to make equal human rights a reality, abundantly and eternally. Humans just cannot achieve equal human rights on their own.

God Bless.:pray:

NO, No, no! The Bible DOES NOT ALLOW women to gain equal human rights based on achievements!

Plain and simple ... the Bible denies women equal human rights based on the fact that they are female. There are hundreds of verses throughout the Bible that deny women equal opportunities with men, simply because they are female.

THE BIBLE DENIES WOMEN EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS,

All people are entitled to equal human rights, which the Bible denies,
Rose

CWH
06-27-2014, 11:27 PM
You are confused. :confused2: Basic human rights are equal human rights ... they are one and the same thing! First it must be established that all people are entitled to equal human rights, then you set out to make sure those rights are implemented. Human rights are human rights.
Entitlement of Human rights does not equate to basic Human rights. one is an entitlement, the other is a need. You can entitle as you want but if unachievable it is pointless. How much have the UDHR progressed so far since 1948? Not much.


:clap2: You finally said it! Now, how do you justify what you just said with what the Bible teaches?

The Bible certainly does not teach that all people should be given freedom and equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity means equal playing field = meritocracy. There are many passages in the Bible that God refers to meritocracy.


I never said equal human rights would be easy to achieve! I said every person is ENTITLED TO EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS!
Thank you for agreeing with me that Equal Human Rights is not easy to achieve. Same as World Peace, easy said than done, and they have been saying that for centuries and yet unachievable.


Basic human rights are equal human rights! They are one and the same!

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE THE RIGHTS THAT ALL HUMANS ARE ENTITLED TO!

IT IS IMMORAL TO VIOLATE A PERSONS HUMAN RIGHTS!

All people are entitled to equal human rights,

Basic rights is part of human rights and you don't depend on others to achieve those basic human rights; you need to work hard for them by yourself... money, security, food , houses, medical care, health etc. That is by your own MERITS.

Hod Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-28-2014, 12:24 AM
Just because someone is born ugly, handicapped or a homosexual does not mean they should be denied their equal human rights! You have the same mentality as the primitive, male-biased men who wrote the Bible. Over, and over again you have said that human rights are based on merits, which is exactly what the Bible says.
Then suggest to me how are those people who were born ugly, handicapped, homosexuals to enjoy the entitlement of their human rights getting a marriage partner?


The Bible says that if you are born female, or you are born homosexual you are not entitled to the same human rights as a heterosexual man. That is immoral and wrong! The Bible does not allow the same rights and opportunities to women as it does to men, therefore it violates their human rights.
There is no violation of human rights. The violations that you see in the Bible is your own deluded conclusions.


The foundation of morality is based on human rights, any act that violates a persons human rights is IMMORAL!
No the foundation of morality is knowing good and evil and doing what is righteous and refrain from doing what is unrighteous. Unfortunately humans can't differentiate very well what is moral and what is immoral. A good example is is fornication good or evil? People who fuck around will say it is good; others will say it is bad or neutral. Same with smoking pot, isn't it?


The Bible is filled with human rights violations decreed by its god, therefore the Biblegod is IMMORAL!
There is no human rights violation by God, Can I also say that the theory of Evolution violates human rights because as said by Dawrin in his book on "The Descent of Man", he said that the survival of the fittest is necessary to put men superior over the women. This is violation of human rights and is immoral, better throw away the theory of Evolution! Please read on the inequality of the sexes based on survival of the fittest by Darwin:

http://pechorin2.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/darwin-on-the-inequality-of-the-sexes/


NO! Human rights are not based on merits! How many times do I have to say that before it gets through to you? All humans are born entitled to equal human rights, they do not have to earn those rights like you say.

Yes, Yes. Yes, Everything is done through your own efforts even though you are entitled..... food, money, health, shelter, safety etc. That means by your own MERITS. You sow what you reap. This is fair and equal.


What you fail to understand is that a right is a right. It doesn't matter how many obstacles there are to achieving that right, it still remains a right that everyone is entitled to. From the get-go, the Bible outright denies women equal human rights with men ... it doesn't even give women a chance to achieve equal rights with men!
Yes, a right is a right, an entitlement is an entitlement, an achievement is an achievement. You can be entitled to a right but can you achieve it? If not the entitlement is Useless, might as well don't have that entitlement. I wonder how you can force Muslims and Muslim countries to entitle same equal rights as for westerners.
The Bible allows women rights in many areas if only you can open your eyes BIG BIG. it is evil men who denied women's rights.


NO, No, no! The Bible DOES NOT ALLOW women to gain equal human rights based on achievements!
The Bible does allow women and men to gain equal rights based on their natural abilities and differences working together for the common good goals. Important thing is not the equal human rights but achieving the common good goals together same as husband and wife doing their own roles using their own Abilities and Differences to ensure that the family is well taken care of. That is call equal human rights based on cooperative merits. Please read on "Does God hate women? - the Biblical view in Women":

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3654


Plain and simple ... the Bible denies women equal human rights based on the fact that they are female. There are hundreds of verses throughout the Bible that deny women equal opportunities with men, simply because they are female.

THE BIBLE DENIES WOMEN EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS,

All people are entitled to equal human rights, which the Bible denies,
Plain and simple, there are hundreds of verses that the Bible denies equal human rights to men based on the fact that they are men.... why should men protect and die for the women folks? why should men observe worship traditions, why should males undergo circumcision, why should men "rule" over women, why should men be killed and women spared, why should men labor under the sun, why should men provide for the women, why should men suffer as slaves, why should men discipline children, why should men become kings and leaders, why should men become soldiers, why should men be preachers, why should men be killed for rapes and adultery, why should men be killed for not observing the Sabbath, why should men be responsible for the family...... You are damned bias and care much more for women's rights but denies equal human rights to men!
There are also hundreds of verses in the Bible in which women were seemed given more rights than men.

The Bible is unbias as punishments and rewards are meted to both men and women for their sins. God forgive both men and women equally and both men and women have equal chance of going into the Kingdom of heaven. Equal rights for gender to me is immaterial, the important thing is achieving the final good goals. You need to strive to enter the Kingdom of heaven by being righteous and doing the will of the Father who is in heaven i.e. by your own merits! What good is equal rights for gender if the common good goals such as having a blessed family, eternal, righteous and abundant life cannot be achieved?

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-28-2014, 09:03 AM
Entitlement of Human rights does not equate to basic Human rights. one is an entitlement, the other is a need. You can entitle as you want but if unachievable it is pointless. How much have the UDHR progressed so far since 1948? Not much.

You are talking nonsense Cheow! :dizzy: Basic human rights are human rights ... WHICH EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO EQUALLY!


Equal opportunity means equal playing field = meritocracy. There are many passages in the Bible that God refers to meritocracy.

It doesn't matter if there are passages in the Bible that refer to meritocracy, because there are many more that deny women equal human rights and violate their human rights.

Biblical laws allow people to be owned as slaves in perpetuity and women to be captured and forced into marriage ... that my friend is a HUGE VIOLATION of peoples humans rights!

The Bible is a book FILLED with human rights violations!


Basic rights is part of human rights and you don't depend on others to achieve those basic human rights; you need to work hard for them by yourself... money, security, food , houses, medical care, health etc. That is by your own MERITS.

Hod Bless.:pray:

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ... HUMAN RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS WHICH EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO!

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-28-2014, 10:04 AM
Then suggest to me how are those people who were born ugly, handicapped, homosexuals to enjoy the entitlement of their human rights getting a marriage partner?

I think you are very confused about the nature of human rights. No one is entitled to a marriage partner ... people are entitled to the freedom to make the choice of whether or not they want to marry. If people never find a partner who wants to marry them, then that is just their bad luck, it doesn't have anything to do with entitlement of human rights.



There is no violation of human rights. The violations that you see in the Bible is your own deluded conclusions.

Cheow says there are no violations of human rights in the Bible ... :lol:
Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;

Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:



I guess Cheow doesn't consider slavery and forced marriage to be violations of human rights. All I can say is WOW! That is pathetic!



No the foundation of morality is knowing good and evil and doing what is righteous and refrain from doing what is unrighteous. Unfortunately humans can't differentiate very well what is moral and what is immoral. A good example is is fornication good or evil? People who fuck around will say it is good; others will say it is bad or neutral. Same with smoking pot, isn't it?

The reason that human rights are the foundation of morality is because that sets the standard for what is morally right and wrong. All human rights violations are considered to be immoral and are therefore WRONG!

There are many things like fornication or smoking pot that ARE NOT moral issues because they do not violate the human rights of others. There is nothing morally wrong with fornication if it is done between two consenting adults, the same with smoking pot.

Something can be wrong because it breaks a law, but that doesn't mean it is immoral. There are all sorts of stupid laws that have nothing to do with morality or human rights.


There is no human rights violation by God, Can I also say that the theory of Evolution violates human rights because as said by Dawrin in his book on "The Descent of Man", he said that the survival of the fittest is necessary to put men superior over the women. This is violation of human rights and is immoral, better throw away the theory of Evolution! Please read on the inequality of the sexes based on survival of the fittest by Darwin:

There you go again, making ignorant statements! The laws contained in the Bible, which you believe are given by god continually violate human rights.




Yes, Yes. Yes, Everything is done through your own efforts even though you are entitled..... food, money, health, shelter, safety etc. That means by your own MERITS. You sow what you reap. This is fair and equal.

Yes, a right is a right, an entitlement is an entitlement, an achievement is an achievement. You can be entitled to a right but can you achieve it? If not the entitlement is Useless, might as well don't have that entitlement. I wonder how you can force Muslims and Muslim countries to entitle same equal rights as for westerners.
The Bible allows women rights in many areas if only you can open your eyes BIG BIG. it is evil men who denied women's rights.

Just because I can't force Muslim to give women equal human rights doesn't mean those women aren't entitled to equal human rights!


The Bible does allow women and men to gain equal rights based on their natural abilities and differences working together for the common good goals. Important thing is not the equal human rights but achieving the common good goals together same as husband and wife doing their own roles using their own Abilities and Differences to ensure that the family is well taken care of. That is call equal human rights based on cooperative merits. Please read on "Does God hate women? - the Biblical view in Women":

What Bible are you reading? The Bible flat out denies women equal human rights in many areas, with no options or opportunities to gain them back.



Plain and simple, there are hundreds of verses that the Bible denies equal human rights to men based on the fact that they are men.... why should men protect and die for the women folks? why should men observe worship traditions, why should males undergo circumcision, why should men "rule" over women, why should men be killed and women spared, why should men labor under the sun, why should men provide for the women, why should men suffer as slaves, why should men discipline children, why should men become kings and leaders, why should men become soldiers, why should men be preachers, why should men be killed for rapes and adultery, why should men be killed for not observing the Sabbath, why should men be responsible for the family...... You are damned bias and care much more for women's rights but denies equal human rights to men!
There are also hundreds of verses in the Bible in which women were seemed given more rights than men.

Of course there are hundreds of verses in the Bible that deny men human rights! What do you think I've been talking about in all my posts?

THE BIBLE IS A BOOK THAT VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.



The Bible is unbias as punishments and rewards are meted to both men and women for their sins. God forgive both men and women equally and both men and women have equal chance of going into the Kingdom of heaven. Equal rights for gender to me is immaterial, the important thing is achieving the final good goals. You need to strive to enter the Kingdom of heaven by being righteous and doing the will of the Father who is in heaven i.e. by your own merits! What good is equal rights for gender if the common good goals such as having a blessed family, eternal, righteous and abundant life cannot be achieved?

God Bless.:pray:

I'm not talking about equality for punishments of sins. I am talking about the violation of human rights and the denial of equal human rights found in the Bible.

The Bible is a book that Christians consider to be the word of god, yet it is filled with laws given by the Biblegod that violate and deny peoples human rights, therefore its god is immoral.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

CWH
06-28-2014, 09:27 PM
I think you are very confused about the nature of human rights. No one is entitled to a marriage partner ... people are entitled to the freedom to make the choice of whether or not they want to marry. If people never find a partner who wants to marry them, then that is just their bad luck, it doesn't have anything to do with entitlement of human rights.
You are confused, It is not they don't want to marry as this is their entitlemernt, but people denied them of their human rights and don't want to marry them because they are born ugly, handicapped etc. Therefore to them the human rights are not equal. How do you slove that problem?


Cheow says there are no violations of human rights in the Bible ... :lol: Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
Now open your eyes Big Big:
It is traditional throughout the ancient world that captives of war will be treated like POWs. And as POWs they were treated like prisoners with little rights and expected to become slaves.
Here we see that the Israelites treated their female captives with respect and more humanely and they married them so that they became their wives and were given the rights of a bride. If their intention was to rape, why married them?


Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [I]are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:
Those people were poor and their survival were at stakes or much worse if left alone to fend for themselves and the Israelites bought into their family as adoption so that they will have a much better chance of survival and a better life. This is what it meant by "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession". "they shall be your bondmen for ever" means they are to work for the family as long as the family name lives on.... some sort of a life long adoption and employment which will ensure their survival for a long time.
Adoption of other poor family and children were common in ancient days especially in China and the family adopted their adopter's family name as an appreciation for their kindness in helping them to survive.. They will work for then family for life and became part of their adopted family.


I guess Cheow doesn't consider slavery and forced marriage to be violations of human rights. All I can say is WOW! That is pathetic!
In ancient days, slavery was considered as a job same as soldiering. Some people willingly became slave as it was the only way to survive knowing the job description and treatment they may have to endure; this is better than to suffer and die.

Forced marriage was a tradition (It is still a tradition in some primitive tribes and cultures) in those days in which people willingly married. It goes the same for both gender.

It is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Should we stop their human rights the freedom to practice their culture and forced them to relinquish their rights to adopt westerner's culture? Of course, ideally they should be married to the ones they loved but even that there is no guarantee that their lives will be happier. Look at the western world, even tough many married to the ones they loved yet many end up unhappy and they eventualy divorced. Same as with forced marriage and there were instances in which forced marriages resulted in a happy family lives. I believe it is the way one respect and accept each other differences.


The reason that human rights are the foundation of morality is because that sets the standard for what is morally right and wrong. All human rights violations are considered to be immoral and are therefore WRONG!
The problem lies in individual's definition of morality which humans seem to have some difficulty discerning right and wrong, Incest is wrong and immoral yet some people do practice them. A serial murder and rapist will think it is ok to murder and rape. We can argue that is is right based on human rights to be free to do what they think is right yet we know what they did is wrong. Therefore, we require laws to help us discern what is right and what is wrong. And as we know, human-made laws are based on norms and are not entirely right which is why soem laws differ from country to country.


There are many things like fornication or smoking pot that ARE NOT moral issues because they do not violate the human rights of others. There is nothing morally wrong with fornication if it is done between two consenting adults, the same with smoking pot.
Same can I say of incest using your words, "There is nothing morally wrong with fornication if it is done between two consenting adults". If everyone of us fornicates i.e. sleep with anyone and everyone we want, what will happen to the society? We will end up like Sodom and Gommorah that the moment we enter those towns, men and women will be constantly after your private parts.:lol: And if everyone smoke pots, accidents and laziness will be everywhere as everyone will be too stoned to do rational things. And long term pot usage will damage the brain same as with alcohol and drug abuse. What I am saying is that there must be some control in everything because humans sometimes cannot discern what is right and what is wrong. Morality should also look at the long term result of one's action as in this case, the long term effect of mass fornications and pot smoking. It is like allowing everyone young and old, good and evil to own guns "because it is nothing wrong", then we are in for disasters.


Something can be wrong because it breaks a law, but that doesn't mean it is immoral. There are all sorts of stupid laws that have nothing to do with morality or human rights.
They are stupid laws because they are based on norms. However, those in the areas or countries that the laws were made do not feel it is stupid and accepted them. It is stupid because we don't agree with the laws based on our own standard of logic and morality. A good example, a thief will say that theft is ok and laws against theft is stupid.


There you go again, making ignorant statements! The laws contained in the Bible, which you believe are given by god continually violate human rights.
The laws in the Bible does not violate human rights as per se but it took into consideration various factors such as justice, contractual agreements, exceptions, forgiveness, mortality, kindness, long term effects etc.


Just because I can't force Muslim to give women equal human rights doesn't mean those women aren't entitled to equal human rights!
Then equal rigths are not equal. If one can't enjoy the human rights they are entitled to, what is the use of the human rights? There are many violations of the UDHR and I don't see much progress after being for the past >65 years. I believe the problem is that we are not dealing with the basic needs first such as food, money, shelter, etc. See wiki on thie violations:

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/violations-of-human-rights/article-3.html


What Bible are you reading? The Bible flat out denies women equal human rights in many areas, with no options or opportunities to gain them back.
Open your eyes BIG BIG, the Bible never denies women equal rights in many areas; it is your deluded thinking; it fact God blessed women same as men as they are created in His image. If the Bible denies women human rights why does God allows women to enters into the Kingdom of heaven equally same as men?


Of course there are hundreds of verses in the Bible that deny men human rights! What do you think I've been talking about in all my posts?
Then why don't you fight for men's rights as well?.... men should not die for the womenfolks, men should not protect women and let women fend for themselves, all women should be killed just like all the men... etc. What I am saying is that the Bible is fair to indicate that the both men and women are denied their rights as it seems; and that both men and women has equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.


THE BIBLE IS A BOOK THAT VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.


I'm not talking about equality for punishments of sins. I am talking about the violation of human rights and the denial of equal human rights found in the Bible.

The Bible is a book that Christians consider to be the word of god, yet it is filled with laws given by the Biblegod that violate and deny peoples human rights, therefore its god is immoral.
There are no violations of human rights in the Bible and no immoral god. It is the result of your deluded thinking.

All people are entitled to equal human rights base on merits and equal opportunity.

God Bless.:pray:

Mystykal
06-29-2014, 12:30 AM
You are confused, It is not they don't want to marry as this is their entitlemernt, but people denied them of their human rights and don't want to marry them because they are born ugly, handicapped etc. Therefore to them the human rights are not equal. How do you slove that problem?


Now open your eyes Big Big:
It is traditional throughout the ancient world that captives of war will be treated like POWs. And as POWs they were treated like prisoners with little rights and expected to become slaves.
Here we see that the Israelites treated their female captives with respect and more humanely and they married them so that they became their wives and were given the rights of a bride. If their intention was to rape, why married them?


Those people were poor and their survival were at stakes or much worse if left alone to fend for themselves and the Israelites bought into their family as adoption so that they will have a much better chance of survival and a better life. This is what it meant by "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession". "they shall be your bondmen for ever" means they are to work for the family as long as the family name lives on.... some sort of a life long adoption and employment which will ensure their survival for a long time.
Adoption of other poor family and children were common in ancient days especially in China and the family adopted their adopter's family name as an appreciation for their kindness in helping them to survive.. They will work for then family for life and became part of their adopted family.


In ancient days, slavery was considered as a job same as soldiering. Some people willingly became slave as it was the only way to survive knowing the job description and treatment they may have to endure; this is better than to suffer and die.

Forced marriage was a tradition (It is still a tradition in some primitive tribes and cultures) in those days in which people willingly married. It goes the same for both gender.

It is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Should we stop their human rights the freedom to practice their culture and forced them to relinquish their rights to adopt westerner's culture? Of course, ideally they should be married to the ones they loved but even that there is no guarantee that their lives will be happier. Look at the western world, even tough many married to the ones they loved yet many end up unhappy and they eventualy divorced. Same as with forced marriage and there were instances in which forced marriages resulted in a happy family lives. I believe it is the way one respect and accept each other differences.


The problem lies in individual's definition of morality which humans seem to have some difficulty discerning right and wrong, Incest is wrong and immoral yet some people do practice them. A serial murder and rapist will think it is ok to murder and rape. We can argue that is is right based on human rights to be free to do what they think is right yet we know what they did is wrong. Therefore, we require laws to help us discern what is right and what is wrong. And as we know, human-made laws are based on norms and are not entirely right which is why soem laws differ from country to country.


Same can I say of incest using your words, "There is nothing morally wrong with fornication if it is done between two consenting adults". If everyone of us fornicates i.e. sleep with anyone and everyone we want, what will happen to the society? We will end up like Sodom and Gommorah that the moment we enter those towns, men and women will be constantly after your private parts.:lol: And if everyone smoke pots, accidents and laziness will be everywhere as everyone will be too stoned to do rational things. And long term pot usage will damage the brain same as with alcohol and drug abuse. What I am saying is that there must be some control in everything because humans sometimes cannot discern what is right and what is wrong. Morality should also look at the long term result of one's action as in this case, the long term effect of mass fornications and pot smoking. It is like allowing everyone young and old, good and evil to own guns "because it is nothing wrong", then we are in for disasters.


They are stupid laws because they are based on norms. However, those in the areas or countries that the laws were made do not feel it is stupid and accepted them. It is stupid because we don't agree with the laws based on our own standard of logic and morality. A good example, a thief will say that theft is ok and laws against theft is stupid.


The laws in the Bible does not violate human rights as per se but it took into consideration various factors such as justice, contractual agreements, exceptions, forgiveness, mortality, kindness, long term effects etc.


Then equal rigths are not equal. If one can't enjoy the human rights they are entitled to, what is the use of the human rights? There are many violations of the UDHR and I don't see much progress after being for the past >65 years. I believe the problem is that we are not dealing with the basic needs first such as food, money, shelter, etc. See wiki on thie violations:

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/violations-of-human-rights/article-3.html

.
Open your eyes BIG BIG, the Bible never denies women equal rights in many areas; it is your deluded thinking; it fact God blessed women same as men as they are created in His image. If the Bible denies women human rights why does God allows women to enters into the Kingdom of heaven equally same as men?


Then why don't you fight for men's rights as well?.... men should not die for the womenfolks, men should not protect women and let women fend for themselves, all women should be killed just like all the men... etc. What I am saying is that the Bible is fair to indicate that the both men and women are denied their rights as it seems; and that both men and women has equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.


THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.


There are no violations of human rights in the Bible and no immoral god. It is the result of your deluded thinking.

All people are entitled to equal human rights base on merits and equal opportunity.

God Bless.:pray:



THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.

I would like to hear Rose respond to this idea! I would say that morality SHOULD not be based on cultural norms and so in theory should be the same the world over... However, the reality is that moral codes are man-made. And as such continue to change... :D


Namaste,


Mystykal

CWH
06-29-2014, 04:25 AM
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.

I would like to hear Rose respond to this idea! I would say that morality SHOULD not be based on cultural norms and so in theory should be the same the world over... However, the reality is that moral codes are man-made. And as such continue to change... :D




Namaste,


Mystykal

Thanks, Mystykal.

Rose likely respond is that the theory of evolution of survival of the fittest and natural selection does not involve intelligent animal like humans becasue we have the capacity to think and adapt. This will be in contradiction to what she has said. Interesting to hear from Rose.

showthread.php?5729-Discussion-series-Is-it-ok-for-Women-to-rape-Men/page2&highlight=survival+fittest


God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-29-2014, 07:51 AM
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.

I would like to hear Rose respond to this idea! I would say that morality SHOULD not be based on cultural norms and so in theory should be the same the world over... However, the reality is that moral codes are man-made. And as such continue to change... :D


Namaste,


Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

I am surprised you have stooped to the level of Cheow's illogical thinking.

Evolution is a theory of the way that life evolved on our planet ... there is NOTHING moral or immoral about a theory!

When a cat kills a mouse for survival, or a deer dies in the winter because it doesn't have a thick enough winter coat, there is nothing moral or immoral about those processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

How did you fall for Cheows mixed up way of thinking? He thinks that slavery and forced marriages do not violate peoples human rights! How crazy is that?

The true foundation of morality is based on human rights, we are all human and thus share equal human rights, which makes it an immoral act to violate a persons human rights. Human rights NEVER change as long as we remain human, because they are the rights we are entitled to as humans.

King regards,
Rose

Rose
06-29-2014, 08:28 AM
Thanks, Mystykal.

Rose likely respond is that the theory of evolution of survival of the fittest and natural selection does not involve intelligent animal like humans becasue we have the capacity to think and adapt. This will be in contradiction to what she has said. Interesting to hear from Rose.

showthread.php?5729-Discussion-series-Is-it-ok-for-Women-to-rape-Men/page2&highlight=survival+fittest (http://showthread.php?5729-Discussion-series-Is-it-ok-for-Women-to-rape-Men/page2&highlight=survival+fittest)


God Bless.:pray:

I'm sorry that you have trapped Mystykal into your screwed up way of thinking about evolution. I know that you know better, because you even half-way stated what my response would be.

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, because you seem to have a difficult time understanding the basic concepts of evolution. Humans are moral creatures because we are self aware and have the ability to reason, this does not mean we are not subject in some degree to survival of the fittest or natural selection. We have bodies made of cells that are subject to the evolutionary process of mutation and change over time. Let me repeat ... that has NOTHING to do with our being moral agents!

Again, we are the only animals on the planet that are moral agents, because we are self-aware and have the ability to reason, therefore we are not completely at the mercy of the natural processes of evolution.

All people are self-aware humans with the ability to reason, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-29-2014, 10:02 AM
You are confused, It is not they don't want to marry as this is their entitlemernt, but people denied them of their human rights and don't want to marry them because they are born ugly, handicapped etc. Therefore to them the human rights are not equal. How do you slove that problem?

1. Cheow believes that marriage is an entitlement (meaning a man is entitled to marry a woman by force)

2. Rose believes that every person should have the right to choose if and whom they marry

Problems don't always have a solution. If someone is born ugly, or handicapped and no one wants to marry them, then that is just their bad luck ... it is no ones fault.



Now open your eyes Big Big:
It is traditional throughout the ancient world that captives of war will be treated like POWs. And as POWs they were treated like prisoners with little rights and expected to become slaves.
Here we see that the Israelites treated their female captives with respect and more humanely and they married them so that they became their wives and were given the rights of a bride. If their intention was to rape, why married them?

1. Cheow believes if something is a tradition (like forced marriage of captives, or slavery), then it is not a violation of a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that any action that violates a persons humans rights is immoral and wrong



Those people were poor and their survival were at stakes or much worse if left alone to fend for themselves and the Israelites bought into their family as adoption so that they will have a much better chance of survival and a better life. This is what it meant by "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession". "they shall be your bondmen for ever" means they are to work for the family as long as the family name lives on.... some sort of a life long adoption and employment which will ensure their survival for a long time.
Adoption of other poor family and children were common in ancient days especially in China and the family adopted their adopter's family name as an appreciation for their kindness in helping them to survive.. They will work for then family for life and became part of their adopted family.


In ancient days, slavery was considered as a job same as soldiering. Some people willingly became slave as it was the only way to survive knowing the job description and treatment they may have to endure; this is better than to suffer and die.

1. Cheow believes that slavery (the owning of another human being) is okay and not a violation of a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that owning another human being is ALWAYS wrong and a violation of a persons human rights [/quote]



Forced marriage was a tradition (It is still a tradition in some primitive tribes and cultures) in those days in which people willingly married. It goes the same for both gender.

It is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Should we stop their human rights the freedom to practice their culture and forced them to relinquish their rights to adopt westerner's culture? Of course, ideally they should be married to the ones they loved but even that there is no guarantee that their lives will be happier. Look at the western world, even tough many married to the ones they loved yet many end up unhappy and they eventualy divorced. Same as with forced marriage and there were instances in which forced marriages resulted in a happy family lives. I believe it is the way one respect and accept each other differences.

1. Cheow believes that forced marriage is okay if it is a tradition, even though it still violates a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that forced marriage is ALWAYS wrong and immoral, because it violates a persons human rights



The problem lies in individual's definition of morality which humans seem to have some difficulty discerning right and wrong, Incest is wrong and immoral yet some people do practice them. A serial murder and rapist will think it is ok to murder and rape. We can argue that is is right based on human rights to be free to do what they think is right yet we know what they did is wrong. Therefore, we require laws to help us discern what is right and what is wrong. And as we know, human-made laws are based on norms and are not entirely right which is why soem laws differ from country to country.


Same can I say of incest using your words, "There is nothing morally wrong with fornication if it is done between two consenting adults". If everyone of us fornicates i.e. sleep with anyone and everyone we want, what will happen to the society? We will end up like Sodom and Gommorah that the moment we enter those towns, men and women will be constantly after your private parts.:lol: And if everyone smoke pots, accidents and laziness will be everywhere as everyone will be too stoned to do rational things. And long term pot usage will damage the brain same as with alcohol and drug abuse. What I am saying is that there must be some control in everything because humans sometimes cannot discern what is right and what is wrong. Morality should also look at the long term result of one's action as in this case, the long term effect of mass fornications and pot smoking. It is like allowing everyone young and old, good and evil to own guns "because it is nothing wrong", then we are in for disasters.

THE DEFINITION AND FOUNDATION OF MORALITY IS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS ... ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS HUMAN RIGHTS IS IMMORAL!



They are stupid laws because they are based on norms. However, those in the areas or countries that the laws were made do not feel it is stupid and accepted them. It is stupid because we don't agree with the laws based on our own standard of logic and morality. A good example, a thief will say that theft is ok and laws against theft is stupid.

Many stupid laws that violate human rights are made by the people who have control, just like the immoral laws in the Bible are made by men who want to have power and control over women.



The laws in the Bible does not violate human rights as per se but it took into consideration various factors such as justice, contractual agreements, exceptions, forgiveness, mortality, kindness, long term effects etc.

1. Cheow does not believe that biblical laws violate human rights, even though they allow slavery and forced marriages

2. Rose believes that slavery and forced marriages are wrong and violate human rights



Then equal rigths are not equal. If one can't enjoy the human rights they are entitled to, what is the use of the human rights? There are many violations of the UDHR and I don't see much progress after being for the past >65 years. I believe the problem is that we are not dealing with the basic needs first such as food, money, shelter, etc. See wiki on thie violations:

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/violations-of-human-rights/article-3.html

.

Your statement makes not sense. :confused:

1. Cheow believe that if a person can't enjoy their human rights why even have them

2. Rose believes that it is every persons duty to fight for the human rights of those who are being denied them


Open your eyes BIG BIG, the Bible never denies women equal rights in many areas; it is your deluded thinking; it fact God blessed women same as men as they are created in His image. If the Bible denies women human rights why does God allows women to enters into the Kingdom of heaven equally same as men?


Then why don't you fight for men's rights as well?.... men should not die for the womenfolks, men should not protect women and let women fend for themselves, all women should be killed just like all the men... etc. What I am saying is that the Bible is fair to indicate that the both men and women are denied their rights as it seems; and that both men and women has equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

1. Cheow believes it's okay if only some a persons human rights are denied (like in the Bible)

2. Rose believes all human (men and women) rights violations are immoral and wrong ... EVEN IN THE BIBLE



THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIOLATES PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL.


There are no violations of human rights in the Bible and no immoral god. It is the result of your deluded thinking.

All people are entitled to equal human rights base on merits and equal opportunity.

God Bless.:pray:

1. Cheow believe there are NO human rights violation in the Bible, even though the Bible allows slavery, forced marriages and the slaughter of men, women and children for holding different religious beliefs

2. Rose believes that slavery, forced marriages murdering people for their religious beliefs are gross human rights violations, thus they are immoral and wrong

ALL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE IMMORAL,
Rose

Rose
06-29-2014, 11:22 AM
Thanks, Mystykal.

Rose likely respond is that the theory of evolution of survival of the fittest and natural selection does not involve intelligent animal like humans becasue we have the capacity to think and adapt. This will be in contradiction to what she has said. Interesting to hear from Rose.

showthread.php?5729-Discussion-series-Is-it-ok-for-Women-to-rape-Men/page2&highlight=survival+fittest (http://showthread.php?5729-Discussion-series-Is-it-ok-for-Women-to-rape-Men/page2&highlight=survival+fittest)


God Bless.:pray:

Below I have quoted what was actually said (because your link didn't work). There is no contradiction whatsoever in my words, so once again you are telling lies about me. Shame on you ... :nono:



http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by CWH http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63005#post63005)
Then why do animals "rape" and "murder"? Must be the law of your Evolution God for the survival of the fittest and you have said that humans are subjected to the law of the Survival of the Fittest.

I HAVE NOT said humans are subjected to the law of the Survival of the Fittest! What I have said is that one of the ways evolution works is through survival of the fittest - that is our biological history - self aware humans are no longer totally at the mercy of survival of the fittest, because we have big brains that allow us to overcome circumstances that other animals cannot.

It is not considered wrong if an animal kills another animal and eats it, but it is totally wrong if a human animal kills another human and eats them. Quit trying to cloud the issue of rape being wrong! Rape only pertains to humans, not other animals.

Forced sex = Rape, and it's always wrong because it violates a persons human rights!

Mystykal
06-29-2014, 10:54 PM
I'm sorry that you have trapped Mystykal into your screwed up way of thinking about evolution. I know that you know better, because you even half-way stated what my response would be.

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, because you seem to have a difficult time understanding the basic concepts of evolution. Humans are moral creatures because we are self aware and have the ability to reason, this does not mean we are not subject in some degree to survival of the fittest or natural selection. We have bodies made of cells that are subject to the evolutionary process of mutation and change over time. Let me repeat ... that has NOTHING to do with our being moral agents!

Again, we are the only animals on the planet that are moral agents, because we are self-aware and have the ability to reason, therefore we are not completely at the mercy of the natural processes of evolution.

All people are self-aware humans with the ability to reason, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I guess my interest in hearing your perspective does not take into account I had not read all the back and forth you had with CWH...
I am not trapped in anything! I was just trying to understand how you might think evolution plays a part in moral behavior. As I said before I personally do not think that morallity is well understood outside the spin put on certain actions committed by people! Morality is a weird slippery slope which depending on where you get your thinking background you may think that war can be moral or immoral. Some societies think morality is ONLY what they deem to be moral... I do not think you can assume that moral behavior is "Self-Evident". I wish that was the case as it would make everything alot easier to sort out!

To say that the biblegod is "immoral" is to assume that morality is defined as innate in each society and that ALL acts can be characterized in the SAME way in ALL cases regardless of the outcome of any given situation. As an example... The USA determines that ALL "terroists" are immoral in their attempt to kill other soldiers and people but the USA then goes out and kills all kinds of regular "innocents" in an attempt to kill off some terrorists. It is justified because the law of the USA is designed to protect our soldiers EVEN when they perform "immoral" acts in their "official" duties as soldiers. So the whole issue of morallity is NOT carved in stone! It is wrong to assume that any one person has a complete understanding of what constitutes moral and immoral acts. The question is who dictates that law? Who created the Forces of Agreement Act? Who is going to be the Arbitrator to determine what is a War crime? The Hague or the UN in my opinion are not good examples of a moral authority.
Rose, you might think it is common sense to assume what is moral or immoral in an act but until the world can agree on a universal platform of Constitutional laws which define moral and immoral acts - one man's justified killing will be another man's MURDER!



Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-30-2014, 12:57 AM
Hello Mystykal,

I am surprised you have stooped to the level of Cheow's illogical thinking.

Evolution is a theory of the way that life evolved on our planet ... there is NOTHING moral or immoral about a theory!

When a cat kills a mouse for survival, or a deer dies in the winter because it doesn't have a thick enough winter coat, there is nothing moral or immoral about those processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

How did you fall for Cheows mixed up way of thinking? He thinks that slavery and forced marriages do not violate peoples human rights! How crazy is that?

The true foundation of morality is based on human rights, we are all human and thus share equal human rights, which makes it an immoral act to violate a persons human rights. Human rights NEVER change as long as we remain human, because they are the rights we are entitled to as humans.

King regards,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I want to make something clear. I do not personally think things like rape and incest or forced marriages or marriage is a "good" thing to do. I believe what YOU have done however, is create a new definition out of the phrase "Human Rights".


The true foundation of morality is based on human rights, we are all human and thus share equal human rights, which makes it an immoral act to violate a persons human rights.


That assumption that human rights are the same for ALL people and MORALITY grows out from such human rights is lacking the third leg to the chair...:eek:

You cannot possibly define what is a human right and what is not! The ONLY way to do that is to GIVE some individiual(s) the arbitrary task of assigning moral value to certain activities and actions. So the human rights of any one individual SHOULD be the SAME as the next persons but since human rights need defining then the definer is the ONE SOLE PERSON deciding what is and what is not a human right.

Human rights are not ALWAYS based on right and wrong per se. Human rights are a set of legal standards which are constructed by courts and lawyers and big wigs with agendas.


So if we now assume that when you refer to human rights you are just suggesting that ANYTHING which hurts another human being is a violation of some intergral human right still to be defined - well that is all fine and good but is NOT how anyone determines what is and what is NOT a human right. To suggest that SAFE ZONES of protective activity is Universally known and should be applied under all conditions and under all circumstances is NOT logical.

You know that the establishment of the USA government and all countries are created on the backs of slavery and genocide. The greatest DEMOCRACY in the world today was created by disguise, trickery and outright slaughter of millions of Natives in a nation that up to that point in history, did not exist! So your assertion that somehow equality is universal and known by all and all agree on how to rid the world of all evil and live in peace while at the same time acting like we got here by equal respect and cooperation - YOU must be kidding!! Your world view, however well intentioned, is UNSUSTAINABLE.

There is no way to enforce a moral code without someone being destroyed in the process! PERIOD!

Peace will only be achieved when love overcomes all hatred and all that is evil. Morality and human rights CANNOT rid the world of EVIL... ONLY GOD can do that!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-30-2014, 02:46 AM
Below I have quoted what was actually said (because your link didn't work). There is no contradiction whatsoever in my words, so once again you are telling lies about me. Shame on you ... :nono:


Hi Rose:
You said...
but it is totally wrong if a human animal kills another human and eats them.


And why is that? Many tribes in the world still believe in cannibalism... They even practice it, And they feel they are just as moral as anyone else! I personally think it is barbaric and cruel but that is just me! Why do you feel you are justified in saying that cannibalism is wrong!? Humans get "consumed" every day for lots of reasons... Why is one form of death and destruction less moral than another? Do you really think world peace is possible without war? Do you really subscribe to the notion that world powers are just going to go away by a peace activist waving a sign? Get REAL! World peace is NOT possible without the extermination of some group of people!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-30-2014, 07:30 AM
Hi Rose:
You said...
but it is totally wrong if a human animal kills another human and eats them.


And why is that? Many tribes in the world still believe in cannibalism... They even practice it, And they feel they are just as moral as anyone else! I personally think it is barbaric and cruel but that is just me! Why do you feel you are justified in saying that cannibalism is wrong!? Humans get "consumed" every day for lots of reasons... Why is one form of death and destruction less moral than another? Do you really think world peace is possible without war? Do you really subscribe to the notion that world powers are just going to go away by a peace activist waving a sign? Get REAL! World peace is NOT possible without the extermination of some group of people!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

You said: "Humans get "consumed" every day for lots of reasons... Why is one form of death and destruction less moral than another?"

Yes, humans do get consumed for many reasons and you should know the difference between a person falling into the ocean and getting consumed by a shark versus a person being killed by another human and eaten! Just because a primitive tribe sees nothing wrong with eating humans does not mean it is right. Ignorance does not make something that is wrong, become right. Throughout history ignorant people have violated the human rights of others and felt justified in doing do, but that in no way made it right.

Morality covers a broad range, but one thing we do know and that is it is immoral to violate a persons human rights. A good place to start in understanding human rights is the U.D.H.R., or the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness pretty much covers categories that human rights falls into.

Hope that helps,
Rose

Rose
06-30-2014, 08:03 AM
Hi Rose:

I guess my interest in hearing your perspective does not take into account I had not read all the back and forth you had with CWH...
I am not trapped in anything! I was just trying to understand how you might think evolution plays a part in moral behavior. As I said before I personally do not think that morallity is well understood outside the spin put on certain actions committed by people! Morality is a weird slippery slope which depending on where you get your thinking background you may think that war can be moral or immoral. Some societies think morality is ONLY what they deem to be moral... I do not think you can assume that moral behavior is "Self-Evident". I wish that was the case as it would make everything alot easier to sort out!

Hello Mystykal,

Ignorant people believe a lot of different things, but that doesn't make them so. Morality covers a large spectrum of ideas, that is why it is good to start with a solid foundation that applies universally, the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence have established such a foundation on human rights.

Human rights are very easy to define, it is the rights that all humans equally share because we are human. Whether or not equal human rights will be easy to achieve has nothing to do with the reality of such rights. When a persons human rights are violated that is considered immoral.




To say that the biblegod is "immoral" is to assume that morality is defined as innate in each society and that ALL acts can be characterized in the SAME way in ALL cases regardless of the outcome of any given situation. As an example... The USA determines that ALL "terroists" are immoral in their attempt to kill other soldiers and people but the USA then goes out and kills all kinds of regular "innocents" in an attempt to kill off some terrorists. It is justified because the law of the USA is designed to protect our soldiers EVEN when they perform "immoral" acts in their "official" duties as soldiers. So the whole issue of morallity is NOT carved in stone! It is wrong to assume that any one person has a complete understanding of what constitutes moral and immoral acts. The question is who dictates that law? Who created the Forces of Agreement Act? Who is going to be the Arbitrator to determine what is a War crime? The Hague or the UN in my opinion are not good examples of a moral authority.
Rose, you might think it is common sense to assume what is moral or immoral in an act but until the world can agree on a universal platform of Constitutional laws which define moral and immoral acts - one man's justified killing will be another man's MURDER!



Namaste,

Mystykal

All that is needed to say that the Biblegod is "immoral" is to show his immoral acts, which are clearly written in the Bible. Laws concerning slavery and forced marriage are immoral no matter what justifications an ignorant person comes up with. It is a gross violation of a persons human rights to force them into slavery, or marriage against their will. Just because people are ignorant that they are violating another persons human rights doesn't mean it isn't so. Ignorance of a fact, doesn't invalidate the fact! Truth is truth regardless of someones beliefs.

All people share the quality of being human, therefore all people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

CWH
06-30-2014, 09:21 AM
1. Cheow believes that marriage is an entitlement (meaning a man is entitled to marry a woman by force)

2. Rose believes that every person should have the right to choose if and whom they marry

Problems don't always have a solution. If someone is born ugly, or handicapped and no one wants to marry them, then that is just their bad luck ... it is no ones fault.
Rose thinks that unprivileged people should be rejected due to bad luck even though they are entitled to their human rights...OMG!


1. Cheow believes if something is a tradition (like forced marriage of captives, or slavery), then it is not a violation of a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that any action that violates a persons humans rights is immoral and wrong
Rose thinks that it is ok to deny people the right to freedom to keep their traditions and customs. If people think that it is ok to practice their belief, it is their freedom of choice, same as homosexuality. No one has the right to stop people from choosing what they want.


1. Cheow believes that slavery (the owning of another human being) is okay and not a violation of a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that owning another human being is ALWAYS wrong and a violation of a persons human rights [/QUOTE]
Rose thinks that people who willingly wants to be "slave" should be denied their right to freedom of choice even if their survival is at stake.


1. Cheow believes that forced marriage is okay if it is a tradition, even though it still violates a persons human rights

2. Rose believes that forced marriage is ALWAYS wrong and immoral, because it violates a persons human rights
To stop a person from the freedom of practicing their traditions or to do what they think is right is violating a person's human rights.


THE DEFINITION AND FOUNDATION OF MORALITY IS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS ... ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES A PERSONS HUMAN RIGHTS IS IMMORAL!
The FOUNDATION OF MORALITY IS DOING RIGHTEOUS THINGS, DOING ANYTHING UNRIGHTEOUS IS IMMORAL. Do unto others you want others to do unto to you is the moral code.


Many stupid laws that violate human rights are made by the people who have control, just like the immoral laws in the Bible are made by men who want to have power and control over women.
Many stupid laws are made by people because they think they think are right based on norms. Only immoral people thinks the laws in the Bible are immoral, "The fool says in their heart, there is no God, all their ways are corrupt and evil."


1. Cheow does not believe that biblical laws violate human rights, even though they allow slavery and forced marriages

2. Rose believes that slavery and forced marriages are wrong and violate human rights

Slavery and forced marriages were willingly acceptable practices in those days. They were the norms. Slavery was a job and Forced marriage was a tradition. Is it right to stop people the freedom from practicing their tradition and choice of job if what they think were right and acceptable?


Your statement makes not sense. :confused:

1. Cheow believe that if a person can't enjoy their human rights why even have them

2. Rose believes that it is every persons duty to fight for the human rights of those who are being denied them
Rose thinks that it is ok for people not to enjoy their human rights for various reasons even though they are entitled to them. It makes no sense for people who are entitled to human rights but yet cannot enjoy them analogous to a rich man entitled to all his monies but yet cannot spent his monies.


1. Cheow believes it's okay if only some a persons human rights are denied (like in the Bible)

2. Rose believes all human (men and women) rights violations are immoral and wrong ... EVEN IN THE BIBLE
Human rights is based on norms; it was a norm to be polygamous; it was a human right. It is a human right for Muslim men to have more than one wife; should we denied them their human right? Human rights is based on the normal practices of the times, if UDHR was launched in 10,000 BC, it will be very different from the UDHR if launched in AD 1 and will be very different to the UDHR as of today.


1. Cheow believe there are NO human rights violation in the Bible, even though the Bible allows slavery, forced marriages and the slaughter of men, women and children for holding different religious beliefs

2. Rose believes that slavery, forced marriages murdering people for their religious beliefs are gross human rights violations, thus they are immoral and wrong
Rose thinks that it is a human rights not to allow the practices of what the ancient believes were their rights. She thinks that destruction of evil and of evil people so that they cannot continue sinning and have better chance of pardon was immoral and wrong....OMG!


ALL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE IMMORAL,
SAME AS ALL IMMORALITIES INCLUDING EVILS ARE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-30-2014, 09:35 AM
Hi Rose:

I want to make something clear. I do not personally think things like rape and incest or forced marriages or marriage is a "good" thing to do. I believe what YOU have done however, is create a new definition out of the phrase "Human Rights".


That assumption that human rights are the same for ALL people and MORALITY grows out from such human rights is lacking the third leg to the chair...:eek:

Hello Mysykal

How so??

If human rights are defined as the rights we are entitled to because we are human ... are we not all human??

I don't understand why you and Cheow are both so adamantly opposed to the idea of human rights being based on our shared humanness?? Unlike the Bible, which bases peoples rights on gender and race. Maybe it's because you and Cheow are both men, and you agree with the Bible's male privilege.




You cannot possibly define what is a human right and what is not! The ONLY way to do that is to GIVE some individiual(s) the arbitrary task of assigning moral value to certain activities and actions. So the human rights of any one individual SHOULD be the SAME as the next persons but since human rights need defining then the definer is the ONE SOLE PERSON deciding what is and what is not a human right.

Human rights are not ALWAYS based on right and wrong per se. Human rights are a set of legal standards which are constructed by courts and lawyers and big wigs with agendas.


So if we now assume that when you refer to human rights you are just suggesting that ANYTHING which hurts another human being is a violation of some intergral human right still to be defined - well that is all fine and good but is NOT how anyone determines what is and what is NOT a human right. To suggest that SAFE ZONES of protective activity is Universally known and should be applied under all conditions and under all circumstances is NOT logical.



I think you are mixing up the idea of human rights with things like societal rights, and the rights one has because they live in a particular country.

Human rights are defined as the rights that ALL humans share because they are human. It doesn't matter ones gender, race or the country they live in ... all that is required is to be human.

Things like: all humans have a right to pursue happiness and not have their well-being violated, all humans have a right to freely choose if and who they marry, all humans have a right to not be owned by another person, all humans have a right to freely choose which if any religion they wish to follow ... these are just a few examples of human rights that intelligent people have written up in the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence.

Only one simple question needs to be asked in order to determine what constitutes a human right. Is the issue at hand a right that is shared by all people? Such as, should all people have the right to not be owned as a slave, or should all people have the right to choose if and who they want to marry?



You know that the establishment of the USA government and all countries are created on the backs of slavery and genocide. The greatest DEMOCRACY in the world today was created by disguise, trickery and outright slaughter of millions of Natives in a nation that up to that point in history, did not exist! So your assertion that somehow equality is universal and known by all and all agree on how to rid the world of all evil and live in peace while at the same time acting like we got here by equal respect and cooperation - YOU must be kidding!! Your world view, however well intentioned, is UNSUSTAINABLE.

There is no way to enforce a moral code without someone being destroyed in the process! PERIOD!

Peace will only be achieved when love overcomes all hatred and all that is evil. Morality and human rights CANNOT rid the world of EVIL... ONLY GOD can do that!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Of course I know that countries and governments have been established by genocide and on the backs of slaves, but what does that have to do with the fact that all people are human and entitled to equal human rights? Just because people continually violate the human rights of others does not mean human rights don't exist!

Just because a code of human rights and morality can't be enforced, is no reason for it not to be declared and stated as a fact, which is what the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence has done.

The world will never be free from evil as long as humans exist, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a moral law based on human rights to judge those who violate it.

It is men like you and Cheow who continue to do great harm to the spread of equal human rights, by clinging to the immoral and biased laws of the Bible that deny people equal human rights, and grant rights based on gender and race. That is wrong and immoral.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

CWH
06-30-2014, 09:40 AM
I'm sorry that you have trapped Mystykal into your screwed up way of thinking about evolution. I know that you know better, because you even half-way stated what my response would be.

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, because you seem to have a difficult time understanding the basic concepts of evolution. Humans are moral creatures because we are self aware and have the ability to reason, this does not mean we are not subject in some degree to survival of the fittest or natural selection. We have bodies made of cells that are subject to the evolutionary process of mutation and change over time. Let me repeat ... that has NOTHING to do with our being moral agents!
Again, we are the only animals on the planet that are moral agents, because we are self-aware and have the ability to reason, therefore we are not completely at the mercy of the natural processes of evolution.

All people are self-aware humans with the ability to reason, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights,

Humans are moral creatures does not mean they cannot be immoral and cannot do wrong. This is why there are so many immoralities in this world because some humans cannot discern between what is right and what is wrong; what is moral and what is immoral.. Humans are subjected to the survival of the fittest which is why the rich and powerful have better chance of survival than the poor and meek. We need an intelligent force call God to make things right. Being self aware is not equate to being righteous and do no wrong.

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
06-30-2014, 11:05 AM
How so??

If human rights are defined as the rights we are entitled to because we are human ... are we not all human??

I don't understand why you and Cheow are both so adamantly opposed to the idea of human rights being based on our shared humanness?? Unlike the Bible, which bases peoples rights on gender and race. Maybe it's because you and Cheow are both men, and you agree with the Bible's male privilege.



I think you are mixing up the idea of human rights with things like societal rights, and the rights one has because they live in a particular country.

Human rights are defined as the rights that ALL humans share because they are human. It doesn't matter ones gender, race or the country they live in ... all that is required is to be human.

Things like: all humans have a right to pursue happiness and not have their well-being violated, all humans have a right to freely choose if and who they marry, all humans have a right to not be owned by another person, all humans have a right to freely choose which if any religion they wish to follow ... these are just a few examples of human rights that intelligent people have written up in the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence.

Only one simple question needs to be asked in order to determine what constitutes a human right. Is the issue at hand a right that is shared by all people? Such as, should all people have the right to not be owned as a slave, or should all people have the right to choose if and who they want to marry?

Of course I know that countries and governments have been established by genocide and on the backs of slaves, but what does that have to do with the fact that all people are human and entitled to equal human rights? Just because people continually violate the human rights of other does not mean human rights don't exist!

Just because a code of human rights and morality can't be enforced, is no reason for it not to be declared and stated as a fact, which is what the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence has done.

The world will never be free from evil as long as humans exist, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a moral law based on human rights to judge those who violate it.

It is men like you and Cheow who continue to do great harm to the spread of equal human rights, by clinging to the immoral and biased laws of the Bible that deny people equal human rights, and grant rights based on gender and race. That is wrong and immoral.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

The Bible does not based people rights on gender and race as everyone regardless of race and gender has equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven i.e. Utopia.

Don't get us wrong Rose, the ideals of UDHR are ok with us but one must study the flaws, the practicability and the problems of UDHR before singing praises. Here are some of the flaws of UDHR and it did mentions the book by Thomas Paine:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_beacon_of_hope

For UDHR to be successful, it must have the followings which will sound impossible:

1. It must be applied truly, universally and acceptable throughout the world with totally no objections and satisfying all differences
2. It must be enforceable and any breach is punishable including the use of force.
3. It must take into action and not just declaration meaning teach how and help one another to achieve all those right, if not it's just NATO i.e. No Action, Talk Only.
4. It must be applied truly equally to all humans including the underprivilege, the ugly, the crippled, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the primitive etc.
5. There must be international universal co-operations including sharing of resources, finances, expertice etc. in order to achieve the objectives equally
6. The basic needs such as food, water, energy, shelter, safety, security must be adequately solved first before higher needs of equal rights can be met.
7. The equal rights must not have any undesireable future consequences.

If all these sounds humanly impossible, then UDHR is just an elusive dream and it requires a much more intelligent and powerful force call God to make it a reality.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
06-30-2014, 12:36 PM
The Bible does not based people rights on gender and race as everyone regardless of race and gender has equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven i.e. Utopia.

Yes, according to the Bible all believers have the right to enter the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn't help the people living on earth who are denied their human rights because of biblical laws. I am not talking about some mythical kingdom of heaven, rather I am talking about how the Bible is filled with laws that deny people their human rights. It would have been far better if the Bible had remained neutral in the area of human rights, instead of making laws that are so biased against women.


Don't get us wrong Rose, the ideals of UDHR are ok with us but one must study the flaws, the practicability and the problems of UDHR before singing praises. Here are some of the flaws of UDHR and it did mentions the book by Thomas Paine:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_beacon_of_hope

For UDHR to be successful, it must have the followings which will sound impossible:

1. It must be applied truly, universally and acceptable throughout the world with totally no objections and satisfying all differences
2. It must be enforceable and any breach is punishable including the use of force.
3. It must take into action and not just declaration meaning teach how and help one another to achieve all those right, if not it's just NATO i.e. No Action, Talk Only.
4. It must be applied truly equally to all humans including the underprivilege, the ugly, the crippled, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the primitive etc.
5. There must be international universal co-operations including sharing of resources, finances, expertice etc. in order to achieve the objectives equally
6. The basic needs such as food, water, energy, shelter, safety, security must be adequately solved first before higher needs of equal rights can be met.
7. The equal rights must not have any undesireable future consequences.

If all these sounds humanly impossible, then UDHR is just an elusive dream and it requires a much more intelligent and powerful force call God to make it a reality.

God Bless.:pray:

If the ideals of the U.D.H.R. are okay with you, then why do you agree with the laws in the Bible that deny people equal human rights?

My main argument, which I have stated from the beginning is that the Bible denies and violates peoples human rights, especially women, because of that the Bible and its god are immoral and unjust. Just because achieving the goal of equal human rights for everyone is an uphill battle, does not mean we shouldn't work toward that end.

The worst thing about the Bible, is that it actually decrees laws that women should not be given the same human rights as men ... now that is bad.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-30-2014, 12:54 PM
Humans are moral creatures does not mean they cannot be immoral and cannot do wrong. This is why there are so many immoralities in this world because some humans cannot discern between what is right and what is wrong; what is moral and what is immoral..

Of course humans can do immoral and wrong things! I never said they couldn't. The Bible is filled with immoral and wrong acts done by humans ... and the reason we can discern that those acts are immoral and wrong is because we have the ability to use our intellect to reason.


Humans are subjected to the survival of the fittest which is why the rich and powerful have better chance of survival than the poor and meek. We need an intelligent force call God to make things right. Being self aware is not equate to being righteous and do no wrong.

God Bless.:pray:

The Biblegod that you believe in has only made things worse for women by giving laws that discriminate against them and deny them equal human rights ... that is not very intelligent!

Where did you ever get the idea that being self aware is equated with being righteous and doing no wrong??

Being self-aware is what gives humans the ability to reason and to know right from wrong ... that is why we are considered to be moral agents.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
06-30-2014, 03:04 PM
Rose thinks that unprivileged people should be rejected due to bad luck even though they are entitled to their human rights...OMG!

Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I ever said that people should be denied their human rights because of bad luck!

What I did say was that forced marriage is not a human right. Everyone is entitled to marry if and when they want, but if they can't find someone who wants to marry them then it is their own bad luck, and no one else's fault.


Rose thinks that it is ok to deny people the right to freedom to keep their traditions and customs. If people think that it is ok to practice their belief, it is their freedom of choice, same as homosexuality. No one has the right to stop people from choosing what they want.

Again, Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I said that people should be denied freedom to keep their traditions and customs!

What I have said is that people should not be allowed to impose their traditions and customs upon other people.



Rose thinks that people who willingly wants to be "slave" should be denied their right to freedom of choice even if their survival is at stake.

Again, and again Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I said that individuals should be denied their right of choice!

What I have said is that owning another person against their will is a gross violation of their human rights, therefore it is immoral and wrong.



To stop a person from the freedom of practicing their traditions or to do what they think is right is violating a person's human rights.

That is right, as long as that person's tradition doesn't involve imposing their beliefs on someone else.



The FOUNDATION OF MORALITY IS DOING RIGHTEOUS THINGS, DOING ANYTHING UNRIGHTEOUS IS IMMORAL. Do unto others you want others to do unto to you is the moral code.

The Bible denies women their equal human rights, which is an act of unrighteousness, therefore the Bible is immoral.



Many stupid laws are made by people because they think they think are right based on norms. Only immoral people thinks the laws in the Bible are immoral, "The fool says in their heart, there is no God, all their ways are corrupt and evil."

That is a completely idiotic statement!


Slavery and forced marriages were willingly acceptable practices in those days. They were the norms. Slavery was a job and Forced marriage was a tradition. Is it right to stop people the freedom from practicing their tradition and choice of job if what they think were right and acceptable?

Slavery and forced marriage were never considered acceptable by the people who were forced against their will to become slaves or wives. Just because a practice is considered a "norm" by some people, does not mean it was right.

Yes, it is right to stop people from practicing their traditions if those traditions are forced upon other people.



Rose thinks that it is ok for people not to enjoy their human rights for various reasons even though they are entitled to them. It makes no sense for people who are entitled to human rights but yet cannot enjoy them analogous to a rich man entitled to all his monies but yet cannot spent his monies.

Cheow is back to his LYING again! :nono::nono: Nowhere have I ever said people should not be able to enjoy their human rights!

What I have said is that ALL PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS.



Human rights is based on norms; it was a norm to be polygamous; it was a human right. It is a human right for Muslim men to have more than one wife; should we denied them their human right? Human rights is based on the normal practices of the times, if UDHR was launched in 10,000 BC, it will be very different from the UDHR if launched in AD 1 and will be very different to the UDHR as of today.

Where do you come up with such crazy ideas ... the Bible?? :lol:

Human rights based on norms ... are you insane?? The norms of the Canaanites was to sacrifice their children to Molech. Do you think that was a human right??

If polygamy involves forcing women to marry a man, then it is a violation of those women's human rights! If the women willingly choose to marry a man, then that is not a violation of human rights.



Rose thinks that it is a human rights not to allow the practices of what the ancient believes were their rights. She thinks that destruction of evil and of evil people so that they cannot continue sinning and have better chance of pardon was immoral and wrong....OMG!


SAME AS ALL IMMORALITIES INCLUDING EVILS ARE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

God Bless.:pray:

AGAIN, Again and again Cheow is a LIAR! :nono::nono: :nono: Nowhere have I said that people should be denied their rights to practice their beliefs.

What I have said a million times, is that it is wrong to impose your beliefs upon other people ... that is a violation of their human rights!

Well Cheow, you have certainly established yourself as a LIAR on this forum ... it's all there in print for everyone to see.



ALL PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS,
Rose

Mystykal
07-01-2014, 02:40 AM
Hello Mysykal

How so??

If human rights are defined as the rights we are entitled to because we are human ... are we not all human??

I don't understand why you and Cheow are both so adamantly opposed to the idea of human rights being based on our shared humanness?? Unlike the Bible, which bases peoples rights on gender and race. Maybe it's because you and Cheow are both men, and you agree with the Bible's male privilege.



I think you are mixing up the idea of human rights with things like societal rights, and the rights one has because they live in a particular country.

Human rights are defined as the rights that ALL humans share because they are human. It doesn't matter ones gender, race or the country they live in ... all that is required is to be human.

Things like: all humans have a right to pursue happiness and not have their well-being violated, all humans have a right to freely choose if and who they marry, all humans have a right to not be owned by another person, all humans have a right to freely choose which if any religion they wish to follow ... these are just a few examples of human rights that intelligent people have written up in the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence.

Only one simple question needs to be asked in order to determine what constitutes a human right. Is the issue at hand a right that is shared by all people? Such as, should all people have the right to not be owned as a slave, or should all people have the right to choose if and who they want to marry?




Of course I know that countries and governments have been established by genocide and on the backs of slaves, but what does that have to do with the fact that all people are human and entitled to equal human rights? Just because people continually violate the human rights of others does not mean human rights don't exist!

Just because a code of human rights and morality can't be enforced, is no reason for it not to be declared and stated as a fact, which is what the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence has done.

The world will never be free from evil as long as humans exist, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a moral law based on human rights to judge those who violate it.

It is men like you and Cheow who continue to do great harm to the spread of equal human rights, by clinging to the immoral and biased laws of the Bible that deny people equal human rights, and grant rights based on gender and race. That is wrong and immoral.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Hi Rose:


It is men like you and Cheow who continue to do great harm to the spread of equal human rights, by clinging to the immoral and biased laws of the Bible that deny people equal human rights, and grant rights based on gender and race. That is wrong and immoral.
You assume way too much!.... When have I said that I cling to the Bible and avoid human rights? YOU are the one not being rational... I am questioning your use of the concept of Human Rights since the definition you use is too broad and vague. The equal rights and protection under law is only as good as the lawgiver! Human Rights do not exist on their own. They are created by like minded people....
I am not in the same camp as Cheow at all..... So stop ASSUMING!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
07-01-2014, 02:54 AM
Rose thinks that unprivileged people should be rejected due to bad luck even though they are entitled to their human rights...OMG!


Rose thinks that it is ok to deny people the right to freedom to keep their traditions and customs. If people think that it is ok to practice their belief, it is their freedom of choice, same as homosexuality. No one has the right to stop people from choosing what they want.


Rose thinks that people who willingly wants to be "slave" should be denied their right to freedom of choice even if their survival is at stake.


To stop a person from the freedom of practicing their traditions or to do what they think is right is violating a person's human rights.


The FOUNDATION OF MORALITY IS DOING RIGHTEOUS THINGS, DOING ANYTHING UNRIGHTEOUS IS IMMORAL. Do unto others you want others to do unto to you is the moral code.


Many stupid laws are made by people because they think they think are right based on norms. Only immoral people thinks the laws in the Bible are immoral, "The fool says in their heart, there is no God, all their ways are corrupt and evil."


Slavery and forced marriages were willingly acceptable practices in those days. They were the norms. Slavery was a job and Forced marriage was a tradition. Is it right to stop people the freedom from practicing their tradition and choice of job if what they think were right and acceptable?


Rose thinks that it is ok for people not to enjoy their human rights for various reasons even though they are entitled to them. It makes no sense for people who are entitled to human rights but yet cannot enjoy them analogous to a rich man entitled to all his monies but yet cannot spent his monies.


Human rights is based on norms; it was a norm to be polygamous; it was a human right. It is a human right for Muslim men to have more than one wife; should we denied them their human right? Human rights is based on the normal practices of the times, if UDHR was launched in 10,000 BC, it will be very different from the UDHR if launched in AD 1 and will be very different to the UDHR as of today.


Rose thinks that it is a human rights not to allow the practices of what the ancient believes were their rights. She thinks that destruction of evil and of evil people so that they cannot continue sinning and have better chance of pardon was immoral and wrong....OMG!


SAME AS ALL IMMORALITIES INCLUDING EVILS ARE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

God Bless.:pray:

This question is for Rose......


Human rights is based on norms; it was a norm to be polygamous; it was a human right. It is a human right for Muslim men to have more than one wife; should we denied them their human right? Human rights is based on the normal practices of the times, if UDHR was launched in 10,000 BC, it will be very different from the UDHR if launched in AD 1 and will be very different to the UDHR as of today.

Based on that fact as stated above.... Do you think polygomy should be legal? How about prostitution?
Please be specific in your answer.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
07-01-2014, 02:59 AM
Hello Mystykal,

Ignorant people believe a lot of different things, but that doesn't make them so. Morality covers a large spectrum of ideas, that is why it is good to start with a solid foundation that applies universally, the U.D.H.R. and the Declaration of Independence have established such a foundation on human rights.

Human rights are very easy to define, it is the rights that all humans equally share because we are human. Whether or not equal human rights will be easy to achieve has nothing to do with the reality of such rights. When a persons human rights are violated that is considered immoral.



All that is needed to say that the Biblegod is "immoral" is to show his immoral acts, which are clearly written in the Bible. Laws concerning slavery and forced marriage are immoral no matter what justifications an ignorant person comes up with. It is a gross violation of a persons human rights to force them into slavery, or marriage against their will. Just because people are ignorant that they are violating another persons human rights doesn't mean it isn't so. Ignorance of a fact, doesn't invalidate the fact! Truth is truth regardless of someones beliefs.

All people share the quality of being human, therefore all people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Hi Rose:


Truth is truth regardless of someones beliefs.

I agree with that statement 100% ! I keep hearing you use the phrase Human Rights but your definition is too vague and is not realistic in any form.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
07-01-2014, 08:02 AM
This question is for Rose......
Human rights is based on norms; it was a norm to be polygamous; it was a human right. It is a human right for Muslim men to have more than one wife; should we denied them their human right? Human rights is based on the normal practices of the times, if UDHR was launched in 10,000 BC, it will be very different from the UDHR if launched in AD 1 and will be very different to the UDHR as of today.



Based on that fact as stated above.... Do you think polygomy should be legal? How about prostitution?
Please be specific in your answer.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

I want you to read my answer very carefully to make sure you understand exactly what I am saying.

First off, Cheow is saying that because polygamy and prostitution were the "Norm" that is why they are considered human rights. WRONG!

Polygamy means being married to multiple spouses. I don't like the idea of polygamy, but I see nothing wrong with people having multiple spouses AS LONG AS IT IS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS AND COMPLETELY THE FREE CHOICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. In the Bible it is the men who choose the wives and concubines they want, many times the women have no choice in the matter, thus it violates their human rights. Forced marriage is always wrong.

Prostitution is selling sex. I may not like the idea of selling sex, but the act itself, that of selling a commodity is not really the problem. The problem comes in when women and under-aged girls are owned by "Pimps" and forced into sex slavery. Anytime sex is performed by force and without consent, or with underage girls (and boys) it is wrong. Also, I think the whole prostitution lifestyle, even when practiced by consenting adults leads to many problems. In conclusion I would have to say, AS LONG AS THE ACT OF SELLING SEX IS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS, IT'S THEIR FREE CHOICE.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
07-01-2014, 08:47 AM
Truth is truth regardless of someones beliefs.
Hi Rose:

I agree with that statement 100% ! I keep hearing you use the phrase Human Rights but your definition is too vague and is not realistic in any form.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

I will try to clarify the term "Human Rights" for you by carefully teasing it apart, hopefully this will allow you to gain a better understanding of what it means, and it won't seem so vague.

All people share the quality of being human, so we can use that as the standard by which to measure our rights as humans. Take for example the issue of whether, or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their human rights. First we must ask the question: should humans have the right to marry? If the answer is yes, then we ask if both homosexuals are human? If the answer is again yes, then according to the "human standard" by which we measure rights, homosexuals have an equal human right to marry. Hope that helps. :)

Homosexuals having the right to marry is a current issue right now in America, and so far every time it is taken to court the human right of gays to marry is upheld. In Washington state where I live gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, because they are human. :)

We are all human, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights based on our humanness,
Rose

Rose
07-01-2014, 09:17 AM
Hi Rose:


You assume way too much!.... When have I said that I cling to the Bible and avoid human rights? YOU are the one not being rational... I am questioning your use of the concept of Human Rights since the definition you use is too broad and vague. The equal rights and protection under law is only as good as the lawgiver! Human Rights do not exist on their own. They are created by like minded people....
I am not in the same camp as Cheow at all..... So stop ASSUMING!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

I am sorry for lumping you in with Cheow, :sEm_ImSorry: but it was beginning to seem like you were defending the Bible with all its immoralities, male-biases and injustices just like he was.

Of course human rights don't exist on their own! They only exist because there are humans. :lol: Just because protection under the law is only as good as the lawgiver (god included :p ) does not mean that human rights don't exist, they do!

I explained the definition of human rights in my last post to you, but I will do a quick refresher here also. The quality that all people share is their humanness, as such we can use that as our standard by which to measure rights. We are all human, thus we all share "human" rights. If you are entitled to a privilege because you are human, then every other human should be entitled to that same privilege, unlike the Bible which bases rights on gender and race.

All people are human, thus all people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

CWH
07-01-2014, 09:59 AM
Don't give me a those craps Rose, I am no newbie in forums. Anyone who disagree with you is a liar and the only perfect righteous person who never lie in this forum is Rose. Brilliant!

I could easily call Rose a Liar because she calls God and the Bible immoral and put nasty things in the thread "If Rose rules the World" if that what Rose wants. I and many others in this forum have been called a liar many times before because we disagree with their views. So knock off this stupid tactic Rose....Liar and Nuts and whatever, I don't give a damn as long as my conscience is concerned.


Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I ever said that people should be denied their human rights because of bad luck!

What I did say was that forced marriage is not a human right. Everyone is entitled to marry if and when they want, but if they can't find someone who wants to marry them then it is their own bad luck, and no one else's fault.
Neither did I say,"if they can't find someone who wants to marry them", I said that people denied them of human rights of getting married because they were ugly, handicapped and underprivileged. How can a human rights fighter like Rose claimed that she cannot do anything to prevent people from denying others human rights because of their bad luck!


Again, Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I said that people should be denied freedom to keep their traditions and customs!

What I have said is that people should not be allowed to impose their traditions and customs upon other people.
Now who is the Liar, Aren't you imposing western ideas on others freedom of rights to keep their beliefs and traditions as if western ideas of traditions are far superior by the UDHR? This is one of the criticism of UDHR which seems to have no regards to some Asian traditions and laws.


Again, and again Cheow is a LIAR! :nono: Nowhere have I said that individuals should be denied their right of choice!
Denying ones freedom to practice what is their rights to practice their religion and tradition is denying peoples right of choice. DON'T ever tell us to throw away our Bibles.....who are you?


What I have said is that owning another person against their will is a gross violation of their human rights, therefore it is immoral and wrong.
Don't you own your children? even your children says they don't want you to own them... or is that also a violation of human rights? We "owned" our children because we love them and they belong to us.... to disown them and let them fend for themselves is cruel as we know that little children are vulnerable and it is cruel to let them fend for themselves knowing they will not be able to survive on their own.

Is it wrong if someone came with their poor family and asked the Israelites to save them or if the Israelites thought that those people were too meek to fend for themselves and have pity over them and bought them to raise them as their own? And since they were bought out of pity, they are obliged to repay them for their kindness and wouldn't mind working for them and becoming part of their family.


That is right, as long as that person's tradition doesn't involve imposing their beliefs on someone else.
So don't tell us to throw away the Bible! That is wrong.


The Bible denies women their equal human rights, which is an act of unrighteousness, therefore the Bible is immoral.
If the Bible denies both men and women their equal rights, why don't you also fight for men's rights? If the Bible denies both men and women rights why allow them equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? In general, the Bible did not deny anyone human rights. Human rights must be based on their beliefs and traditions of their times.


That is a completely idiotic statement!
Slavery and forced marriage were never considered acceptable by the people who were forced against their will to become slaves or wives. Just because a practice is considered a "norm" by some people, does not mean it was right.
Slavery and forced marriages were the traditions of that time and therefore were acceptable practices. It was an expected practices to use captives as their slaves same as current captives of war are expected to be POWs and treated as POWs.


Yes, it is right to stop people from practicing their traditions if those traditions are forced upon other people.
Don't you think UDHR is also forcing on some of those traditions of other people? This is one of the reason why some nations did not signed the UDHR.


Cheow is back to his LYING again! :nono::nono: Nowhere have I ever said people should not be able to enjoy their human rights!

What I have said is that ALL PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
Same as I would say Rose is Lying. What I am saying If people are entitled to their human rights and yet are unable to enjoy those rights, what is the point? And if people are currently enjoying and happy with their traditional rights, why take away those rights by imposing UDHR which goes against those rights?

I said the People are entitle to their equal human rights based on equal opportunity and merits. You sow what you reap. You sow good human rights you reap the good results. Are UDHR all good and without flaws?


Where do you come up with such crazy ideas ... the Bible?? :lol:

Human rights based on norms ... are you insane?? The norms of the Canaanites was to sacrifice their children to Molech. Do you think that was a human right??
It was a human right but an evil human right....should evil practices be destroyed or should it continue to be practiced? Same as I say should murderers be allowed their personal rightnto continue thier serial murders or should they be stopped? Should we allow the evil practices of Nazism to survive? The answer is obvious.


If polygamy involves forcing women to marry a man, then it is a violation of those women's human rights! If the women willingly choose to marry a man, then that is not a violation of human rights.
In polygamous society such as in Muslims countries, the women are willingly married to their husband. It is their human rights and has nothing to do with violations of humans rights same as what is depicted in the Bible....the women captives willingly married to their Israelite men to be their wives so that they will not become slaves unlike other tribes but receive the right as brides.


AGAIN, Again and again Cheow is a LIAR! :nono::nono: :nono: Nowhere have I said that people should be denied their rights to practice their beliefs.
Now who is the liar? Asking us to throw away our Bibles is asking us to deny and reject our human right to believe in religion; who are you to tell us to do that? Who are you to tell us that the immoralities described in the Bible is not good when we believe that it is done against evil so as to make this world a better place.


What I have said a million times, is that it is wrong to impose your beliefs upon other people ... that is a violation of their human rights!
Agree.


Well Cheow, you have certainly established yourself as a LIAR on this forum ... it's all there in print for everyone to see.
Knock out this old crap, it won't work. I won't give a damn!

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
07-01-2014, 10:19 AM
Hello Mystykal

I will try to clarify the term "Human Rights" for you by carefully teasing it apart, hopefully this will allow you to gain a better understanding of what it means, and it won't seem so vague.

All people share the quality of being human, so we can use that as the standard by which to measure our rights as humans. Take for example the issue of whether, or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their human rights. First we must ask the question: should humans have the right to marry? If the answer is yes, then we ask if both homosexuals are human? If the answer is again yes, then according to the "human standard" by which we measure rights, homosexuals have an equal human right to marry. Hope that helps. :)

Homosexuals having the right to marry is a current issue right now in America, and so far every time it is taken to court the human right of gays to marry is upheld. In Washington state where I live gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, because they are human. :)

We are all human, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights based on our humanness,
Rose

Yes, it is a human right to do what the homosexual think is right to marry whoever they want but the question we should be asking is should we encourage it knowing that it goes against natural laws and if everyone do that we will be doomed for extinction.? It is the same as I would ask, should we encourage people to rape and murder knowing it is their personal right to do what they think is right and on the other hand, knowing that it will do great harm?

The issue is personal rights versus right consequences. You sow what you reap.

God Bless,

CWH
07-01-2014, 10:24 AM
Hello Mystykal,

I am sorry for lumping you in with Cheow, :sEm_ImSorry: but it was beginning to seem like you were defending the Bible with all its immoralities, male-biases and injustices just like he was.

Of course human rights don't exist on their own! They only exist because there are humans. :lol: Just because protection under the law is only as good as the lawgiver (god included :p ) does not mean that human rights don't exist, they do!

I explained the definition of human rights in my last post to you, but I will do a quick refresher here also. The quality that all people share is their humanness, as such we can use that as our standard by which to measure rights. We are all human, thus we all share "human" rights. If you are entitled to a privilege because you are human, then every other human should be entitled to that same privilege, unlike the Bible which bases rights on gender and race.

All people are human, thus all people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose
The issue is what standards are we measuring? If human standard is wrong then everything down the line is wrong. And the problem is human is not very good in discerning right from wrong, good from evil.

The Bible does not based rights on gender and race but on good and bad. It goes the same with every religion and not just the Bible alone.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
07-01-2014, 01:27 PM
Don't give me a those craps Rose, I am no newbie in forums. Anyone who disagree with you is a liar and the only perfect righteous person who never lie in this forum is Rose. Brilliant!

I could easily call Rose a Liar because she calls God and the Bible immoral and put nasty things in the thread "If Rose rules the World" if that what Rose wants. I and many others in this forum have been called a liar many times before because we disagree with their views. So knock off this stupid tactic Rose....Liar and Nuts and whatever, I don't give a damn as long as my conscience is concerned.

Calling you a liar had nothing to do with you disagreeing with me and you know it. I clearly quoted all your words where you lied about things I said and believe. All the lies are there in print for everyone to see, so you can't deny them.



Neither did I say,"if they can't find someone who wants to marry them", I said that people denied them of human rights of getting married because they were ugly, handicapped and underprivileged. How can a human rights fighter like Rose claimed that she cannot do anything to prevent people from denying others human rights because of their bad luck!

And exactly who is it that is denying these people their human rights of getting married?


Now who is the Liar, Aren't you imposing western ideas on others freedom of rights to keep their beliefs and traditions as if western ideas of traditions are far superior by the UDHR? This is one of the criticism of UDHR which seems to have no regards to some Asian traditions and laws.

No one is denying them freedom to practice their beliefs and traditions, they just aren't allowed to impose their beliefs on others.


Denying ones freedom to practice what is their rights to practice their religion and tradition is denying peoples right of choice. DON'T ever tell us to throw away our Bibles.....who are you?

Again, no one is denying individuals their right to practice their traditions and beliefs (except the Bible), they just aren't allowed to impose their beliefs and traditions on others.

I have never told you to throw away your Bible ... what I have said, is that once you realize that the Bible is full of immoralities and injustices you will want to throw it away as a moral guidebook, like I did.



Don't you own your children? even your children says they don't want you to own them... or is that also a violation of human rights? We "owned" our children because we love them and they belong to us.... to disown them and let them fend for themselves is cruel as we know that little children are vulnerable and it is cruel to let them fend for themselves knowing they will not be able to survive on their own.

No! I don't own my children. Because I made the choice to have children, I am obligated to take care of them until they reach maturity that doesn't mean I own them.



Is it wrong if someone came with their poor family and asked the Israelites to save them or if the Israelites thought that those people were too meek to fend for themselves and have pity over them and bought them to raise them as their own? And since they were bought out of pity, they are obliged to repay them for their kindness and wouldn't mind working for them and becoming part of their family.

You know I am not talking about the free choices people make. What I am talking about is biblical laws that allow the Hebrews to buy slaves and their children and pass them down as an inheritance. It is wrong to own another human, you can give people jobs without owning them and taking away their freedom.



So don't tell us to throw away the Bible! That is wrong.

Again, I have never told you to throw away your Bible. What I have said is that because the Bible is so full of immoralities and injustices it needs to be thrown away as a moral guidebook.



If the Bible denies both men and women their equal rights, why don't you also fight for men's rights? If the Bible denies both men and women rights why allow them equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? In general, the Bible did not deny anyone human rights. Human rights must be based on their beliefs and traditions of their times.

I am fighting for human rights for all people. The reason I am so against the Bible is because it denies equal human rights ... especially for women. It is meaningless to say that the Bible gives equal rights for entrance into heaven, because heaven is a myth. What matters is life here on earth, the here and now is where human rights matter.



Slavery and forced marriages were the traditions of that time and therefore were acceptable practices. It was an expected practices to use captives as their slaves same as current captives of war are expected to be POWs and treated as POWs.

It doesn't matter if slavery and forced marriages were traditions or acceptable to some people, they are still wrong and a violation of human rights.


Don't you think UDHR is also forcing on some of those traditions of other people? This is one of the reason why some nations did not signed the UDHR.

How is giving people freedom and equality, forcing traditions on them??


Same as I would say Rose is Lying. What I am saying If people are entitled to their human rights and yet are unable to enjoy those rights, what is the point? And if people are currently enjoying and happy with their traditional rights, why take away those rights by imposing UDHR which goes against those rights?

You don't make any sense Cheow. How does giving people freedom and equality, which is what the U.D.H.R. states take away peoples rights??


I said the People are entitle to their equal human rights based on equal opportunity and merits. You sow what you reap. You sow good human rights you reap the good results. Are UDHR all good and without flaws?

Human rights are not based on merits!



Where do you come up with such crazy ideas ... the Bible?? :lol:

Human rights based on norms ... are you insane?? The norms of the Canaanites was to sacrifice their children to Molech. Do you think that was a human right??

It was a human right but an evil human right....should evil practices be destroyed or should it continue to be practiced? Same as I say should murderers be allowed their personal rightnto continue thier serial murders or should they be stopped? Should we allow the evil practices of Nazism to survive? The answer is obvious.

What! Sacrificing your children was a human right? Are you crazy?



In polygamous society such as in Muslims countries, the women are willingly married to their husband. It is their human rights and has nothing to do with violations of humans rights same as what is depicted in the Bible....the women captives willingly married to their Israelite men to be their wives so that they will not become slaves unlike other tribes but receive the right as brides.

It is oxymoronic to say that someone who is captive willingly marries her captor. He wouldn't have had to take her captive, if she would have willingly married him. :lol:

Forced marriages are always wrong and a violation of a persons human rights.



Now who is the liar? Asking us to throw away our Bibles is asking us to deny and reject our human right to believe in religion; who are you to tell us to do that? Who are you to tell us that the immoralities described in the Bible is not good when we believe that it is done against evil so as to make this world a better place.


Knock out this old crap, it won't work. I won't give a damn!

God Bless.:pray:

You sure have a hard head. How many times do I have to repeat myself and tell you that I have never asked you to reject your religion, or throw away your Bible. I have only given you reasons why the Bible should be rejected as a moral guidebook.

All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
07-01-2014, 01:58 PM
Yes, it is a human right to do what the homosexual think is right to marry whoever they want but the question we should be asking is should we encourage it knowing that it goes against natural laws and if everyone do that we will be doomed for extinction.?

I'm glad you agree that homosexuals have the right to marry. :thumb: We don't need to encourage or discourage gay marriage, the choice should be totally left up to the individual who wants to marry their gay partner.


It is the same as I would ask, should we encourage people to rape and murder knowing it is their personal right to do what they think is right and on the other hand, knowing that it will do great harm?

The issue is personal rights versus right consequences. You sow what you reap.

God Bless,

What!! Since when are rape and murder personal rights?? :eek:

Rose
07-01-2014, 02:07 PM
The issue is what standards are we measuring? If human standard is wrong then everything down the line is wrong. And the problem is human is not very good in discerning right from wrong, good from evil.

Didn't you read the post you quoted? The standard is that of the quality that all people share ... being human. All people are entitled to equal human rights, because they are human.


The Bible does not based rights on gender and race but on good and bad. It goes the same with every religion and not just the Bible alone.

God Bless.:pray:

If the Bible bases rights on being good and bad, then why are women denied equal human rights with men?? Are all women bad? :lol:

All people are entitled to equal human rights, but the Bible denies women equal human rights with men,
Rose

Mystykal
07-02-2014, 01:56 AM
Hello Mystykal

I will try to clarify the term "Human Rights" for you by carefully teasing it apart, hopefully this will allow you to gain a better understanding of what it means, and it won't seem so vague.

All people share the quality of being human, so we can use that as the standard by which to measure our rights as humans. Take for example the issue of whether, or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their human rights. First we must ask the question: should humans have the right to marry? If the answer is yes, then we ask if both homosexuals are human? If the answer is again yes, then according to the "human standard" by which we measure rights, homosexuals have an equal human right to marry. Hope that helps. :)

Homosexuals having the right to marry is a current issue right now in America, and so far every time it is taken to court the human right of gays to marry is upheld. In Washington state where I live gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, because they are human. :)

We are all human, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights based on our humanness,
Rose

Hi Rose:
Appology accepted!:thumb:
Now, I want to point out something you keep saying... You say:
"We are all human, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights based on our humanness,"
The examples you give I understand. The problem as I see it is how you know IF an action SHOULD be allowed at all... Take marriage for example....

According to your logic All types of marriages should be allowed as long as between HUMANS! I am sure you mean Adults! Yes? Because using your simplistic notion it should be legal to marry any child or teen with an Adult human! And that is rape! If the child is under the age of consent. Further more according to your logic ALL HUMANS should be allowed to have polygamous marriages for both men and women! Why is that not allowed under the United Nations Human Rights Act?

I understand treating all with respect and dignity but I am baffled by how you arrive at what is a human right simply because we are human! How does a country exist if all human acts are allowed AS LONG AS NO ONE gets hurt! You will have no way to curb EVIL disquised as a Human Right!
Do you believe in evil masquarading as some thing good? :confused:

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
07-02-2014, 04:59 AM
:eek:
Hello Mystykal

I want you to read my answer very carefully to make sure you understand exactly what I am saying.

First off, Cheow is saying that because polygamy and prostitution were the "Norm" that is why they are considered human rights. WRONG!

Polygamy means being married to multiple spouses. I don't like the idea of polygamy, but I see nothing wrong with people having multiple spouses AS LONG AS IT IS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS AND COMPLETELY THE FREE CHOICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. In the Bible it is the men who choose the wives and concubines they want, many times the women have no choice in the matter, thus it violates their human rights. Forced marriage is always wrong.

Prostitution is selling sex. I may not like the idea of selling sex, but the act itself, that of selling a commodity is not really the problem. The problem comes in when women and under-aged girls are owned by "Pimps" and forced into sex slavery. Anytime sex is performed by force and without consent, or with underage girls (and boys) it is wrong. Also, I think the whole prostitution lifestyle, even when practiced by consenting adults leads to many problems. In conclusion I would have to say, AS LONG AS THE ACT OF SELLING SEX IS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS, IT'S THEIR FREE CHOICE.


All people are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose




Hi Rose:
I lost one of my posts to you!
:eek:
Any ways, I want to follow this notion you say forced prostitution is wrong but among Consenting adults its ok.


I think the whole prostitution lifestyle, even when practiced by consenting adults leads to many problems. In conclusion I would have to say, AS LONG AS THE ACT OF SELLING SEX IS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS, IT'S THEIR FREE CHOICE.

Ok! So why did you not say
"It's their "entitled (to) equal human rights," Why? :eek:

I want to make it clear that your example of prositution IS A GREAT example of the problems with your type of non-ethical human rights acceptance of a code of ethics which is based on flawed human nature. I think that it is too simplistic to just assume that all activities which are human to human with no outward "injury" are some how now going to be "human rights" which all people are entitled to without legal jurisprudence.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
07-02-2014, 09:16 AM
Hi Rose:
Appology accepted!:thumb:
Now, I want to point out something you keep saying... You say:

"We are all human, therefore we are all entitled to equal human rights based on our humanness,"
The examples you give I understand. The problem as I see it is how you know IF an action SHOULD be allowed at all... Take marriage for example....

According to your logic All types of marriages should be allowed as long as between HUMANS! I am sure you mean Adults! Yes? Because using your simplistic notion it should be legal to marry any child or teen with an Adult human! And that is rape! If the child is under the age of consent. Further more according to your logic ALL HUMANS should be allowed to have polygamous marriages for both men and women! Why is that not allowed under the United Nations Human Rights Act?

Hello Mystykal

I am happy to be discussing these issues with you ... :thumb:

As many times as I have stated "Between consenting adults" I am surprised you even mentioned that! Of course marriage must be between consenting adults 18 years of age or older. I am continually arguing with Cheow about how forced marriage is equivalent to rape. He believes that as long as a man marries a woman, even if its forced and in violation of her human rights, it's okay and not considered rape. :mad:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) contains NO restrictions on allowing gay marriages or polygamous marriages. You should read it sometime, it will help you understand about the nature of human "rights". Here is the article that pertains to marriage.

Article 16


(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


One of the main reasons there was a need for a document stating that all people are entitled to "equal" human rights, was because so many people were being denied their rights based on gender or race.



I understand treating all with respect and dignity but I am baffled by how you arrive at what is a human right simply because we are human! How does a country exist if all human acts are allowed AS LONG AS NO ONE gets hurt! You will have no way to curb EVIL disquised as a Human Right!
Do you believe in evil masquarading as some thing good? :confused:

Namaste,

Mystykal

The standard by which we measure if we are entitled to a particular "right" is that of being human. In this manner, if a law is made (like in the Bible) that denies women rights that are given to men, those laws can be judged as violations of human rights.

I'm not sure where you came up with the preposterous idea that equal human rights means "all human acts are allowed as long as no one gets hurt!" Rights are those things that promote a persons well-being and allow individual freedom to live life to its fullest, without impinging on the freedom and well-being of others.

Here is a portion of the opening preamble to the U.D.H.R.:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

Hope that helps,
Rose

Rose
07-02-2014, 10:18 AM
:eek:



Hi Rose:
I lost one of my posts to you!
:eek:
Any ways, I want to follow this notion you say forced prostitution is wrong but among Consenting adults its ok.


Ok! So why did you not say Why? :eek:

"It's their "entitled (to) equal human rights,"

I want to make it clear that your example of prositution IS A GREAT example of the problems with your type of non-ethical human rights acceptance of a code of ethics which is based on flawed human nature. I think that it is too simplistic to just assume that all activities which are human to human with no outward "injury" are some how now going to be "human rights" which all people are entitled to without legal jurisprudence.

Namaste,

Mystykal


Hello Mystykal,
Sorry you lost your post. I know how frustrating that is. :break:

Prostitution is an example of human rights being mixed up with ethics. On one hand it should be a persons right to sell their sexual services for money if they want to, but on the other hand a community might not want that type of business to operate in their city so they make a law against it ... that is also their right. The main issue I see pertaining to human rights is the "equality" aspect of it, like we find in the Bible where men are allowed rights that women are denied solely because of gender. A persons human rights are NOT based on gender or race, they are based on being human.

For some reason you have gotten the wrong idea that "human rights" means all activities that don't outwardly harm or injure another person. For example: it is wrong to own another human being no matter how well you treat them. Just because you partake in a "harmless" action does not make it a right. Rights must first be determined to be just and fair and then equally given to all people ... or equally denied all people if circumstances dictate that. For example: during some emergency situations curfews are imposed on all people.

Being human is the "standard" by which a persons " equal rights" are determined. In order to make a judgment on whether something is right or wrong, a standard is needed to make that decision. For example: if a man is allowed an education, but a woman is not based on her gender, it can be determined that both genders are human and therefore entitled to the right of an education. This is how "rights" are determined based on being human.

The term "equal human rights" means that all people (genders and races) share the privilege of having the same rights as everyone else, but first those rights must be determined to be fair and just.

Hope that helps, :)
Rose

CWH
07-04-2014, 08:02 AM
[QUOTE=Rose;64338]Calling you a liar had nothing to do with you disagreeing with me and you know it. I clearly quoted all your words where you lied about things I said and believe. All the lies are there in print for everyone to see, so you can't deny them.
Calling others a liar is telling others that you are the only righteous one who never lie; that's Brilliant!


And exactly who is it that is denying these people their human rights of getting married?
People denies them their rights to marry because no one wants to marry them; so what good is equal human rights to them?


No one is denying them freedom to practice their beliefs and traditions, they just aren't allowed to impose their beliefs on others.
Whether imposed or not the onus is up to them to believe what they want to believe.


Again, no one is denying individuals their right to practice their traditions and beliefs (except the Bible), they just aren't allowed to impose their beliefs and traditions on others.
Same with all religions and not just the Bible, the onus is up to the believer. Even if they are imposed but inwardly they don't believe; it is as good as a non-believer, we call them false Christians. Just like the learned Pharisees in the Bible , they preached but don't practiced or practiced corruptly; what good was that belief being imposed but don't practiced. A believer must believe and practice sincerely. Therefore, there is no actual imposition, the onus is on the person who want to believe.


I have never told you to throw away your Bible ... what I have said, is that once you realize that the Bible is full of immoralities and injustices you will want to throw it away as a moral guidebook, like I did.
That is the biggest mistake you ever made in your life. The immoralities are to tell us not to practice them and that God can turn immoralities into fight against evil that is using evil against evil for good. This is analogous to the newspaper which publishes all the evil things that evil people do so that we are constantly reminded and learned not to do those evil things. Should we throw away the newspapers since it publishes all the immoralities?


No! I don't own my children. Because I made the choice to have children, I am obligated to take care of them until they reach maturity that doesn't mean I own them.
If you don't own your children, then your children are not your own. We own what belongs to us and from us.... don't you own your own body? Your children are your own blood, flesh and bones, ok?.... which is why we are obliged to take care of them till they reach maturity.


You know I am not talking about the free choices people make. What I am talking about is biblical laws that allow the Hebrews to buy slaves and their children and pass them down as an inheritance. It is wrong to own another human, you can give people jobs without owning them and taking away their freedom.
You are wrong in your interpretation which I have already told you. Yes, they were passed down as an inheritance which means that they will also enjoy the inheritance. It is a way of saying they became part of their foster family and they are to work for them to repay their kindness and their investment. In no way did the Bible said they lost their freedom. Don't be taken away by the word "forever" which is a hyperbole meaning for a long time; nothing on earth is for forever.


Again, I have never told you to throw away your Bible. What I have said is that because the Bible is so full of immoralities and injustices it needs to be thrown away as a moral guidebook.
You are throwing your life away. The Bible teach us what is evil and immoral and to avoid them. it teaches us how to live life righteously, abundantly and to have it ETERNALLY.


I am fighting for human rights for all people. The reason I am so against the Bible is because it denies equal human rights ... especially for women. It is meaningless to say that the Bible gives equal rights for entrance into heaven, because heaven is a myth. What matters is life here on earth, the here and now is where human rights matter.
If heaven is a myth then whatever that was written in the Bible about the supposed inequality against women are also a myth, why do you still believe in all these myths?
Myths or not , we Christians believed the Bible because of the Promise that if we did the will of the Father in heaven, we will go into the Kingdom of Heaven which is equivalent to Utopia on Earth.


It doesn't matter if slavery and forced marriages were traditions or acceptable to some people, they are still wrong and a violation of human rights.
It does matter because human rights is derived from traditions. It was a human right to be polygamous and women can easily divorced their husband because that was the traditions of their times. I was a tradition to believe in Baal and thus their "human right" (which was evil belief) to sacrifice children, worship the Phallus and have sex with temple prostitutes (males and females).


How is giving people freedom and equality, forcing traditions on them??


You don't make any sense Cheow. How does giving people freedom and equality, which is what the U.D.H.R. states take away peoples rights??
Because the UDHR is telling them to give up their tradition of forced marriage which they are happily doing. Suppose the UDHR tells us to give up our wealth and share them with the poor for the sake of equality and equal human rights to have wealth, will you be happy to do that? Some people believe that UDHR is imposing western traditional ideas of human rights on them which is why they did not signed the UDHR and besides, UDHR is not mandatory and thee is no enforcement to force them to adhere strictly to the UDHR even if they signed. the UDHR is like a blank piece of paper which you can just declare but may not observed with no expected deterrence.


Human rights are not based on merits!
If it is not based on merits, how are you supposed we can achieve them?....by evolution? .... or by human efforts?


What! Sacrificing your children was a human right? Are you crazy?
It was their belief in Baal that sacrificing children will bring them blessings and fertility. It was their choice to belief what they want; freedom of choice is a human right isn't it? Same with people who believed in Nazism.


It is oxymoronic to say that someone who is captive willingly marries her captor. He wouldn't have had to take her captive, if she would have willingly married him. :lol:
It is like telling us that taking captives of war should not be treated as POWs. Taking captives as POWs is an agreement since humans existed. This was necessary as a punishment for being loyal to the enemy and to ensure justice to those they have killed and that they (the enemy) will not harmed the victors. The Israelites treated the women captives humanely unlike other tribes of their times. They were married so that they became their bride and were given the rights as a Jewish bride and will not be treated as slaves and became free when they were divorced. Furthermore, they were given God's blessings same as the Jews. Traditionally, captives were understood to be tortured, humiliated, raped and sold as slaves but we don't see that in the Bible in the way the Israelites treated the women captives.


Forced marriages are always wrong and a violation of a persons human rights.
Even if they are happy and wiiingly to be forced in order to carry o their tradition? Same as polygamy in which women willingly and happily married to the man.... should they be stopped in the name of equal human rights? It is the same as forcing equal human rights on people who are not willingly to accept them..... is t right to impose equal human rights on them?


You sure have a hard head. How many times do I have to repeat myself and tell you that I have never asked you to reject your religion, or throw away your Bible. I have only given you reasons why the Bible should be rejected as a moral guidebook.
Same as you, I think your head is harder than mine.:D

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
07-04-2014, 08:15 AM
I'm glad you agree that homosexuals have the right to marry. :thumb: We don't need to encourage or discourage gay marriage, the choice should be totally left up to the individual who wants to marry their gay partner.
It's their personal choice to do what they want to do this is exactly what Revelation told us to let the evil continue to do evil and the good to continue to do good because that is their choice.

Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.


What!! Since when are rape and murder personal rights?? :eek:
Same as what you said about prostitution to Mystakal. Personal choice to do what they want to do is their personal human right, right?

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
07-04-2014, 08:23 AM
Didn't you read the post you quoted? The standard is that of the quality that all people share ... being human. All people are entitled to equal human rights, because they are human.

If the Bible bases rights on being good and bad, then why are women denied equal human rights with men?? Are all women bad? :lol:

All people are entitled to equal human rights, but the Bible denies women equal human rights with men,
Rose

Human standards are not precise and therefore cannot be use as a yardstick. The problem is that humans are not very good in discerning what is evil and what is good and what is moral and what is immoral. This is the main reason why there are so many conflicting views and debates on these things.....analogous to why there are so many conflicting views and debates to many theories.

The Bible bases rights on what is good, suitable and moral . There is no Gender inequalities in the Bible based on the main facts that humans are made in God's image and that both gender enjoy equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
07-04-2014, 10:17 AM
Calling others a liar is telling others that you are the only righteous one who never lie; that's Brilliant!

Calling you on your lies in no way implies that I never lie, or that I am righteous!


People denies them their rights to marry because no one wants to marry them; so what good is equal human rights to them?

You don't make any sense Cheow! Just because no one wants to marry someone has nothing to do with their equal rights.


Same with all religions and not just the Bible, the onus is up to the believer. Even if they are imposed but inwardly they don't believe; it is as good as a non-believer, we call them false Christians. Just like the learned Pharisees in the Bible , they preached but don't practiced or practiced corruptly; what good was that belief being imposed but don't practiced. A believer must believe and practice sincerely. Therefore, there is no actual imposition, the onus is on the person who want to believe.

The Bible is totally against freedom to practice the religion of your choice. The first four commandments decree that there is only one god you can worship and only one day in which to do it ... on penalty of death. So much for freedom of religion!



That is the biggest mistake you ever made in your life. The immoralities are to tell us not to practice them and that God can turn immoralities into fight against evil that is using evil against evil for good. This is analogous to the newspaper which publishes all the evil things that evil people do so that we are constantly reminded and learned not to do those evil things. Should we throw away the newspapers since it publishes all the immoralities?

Your crazy way of thinking is beyond belief. :dizzy: You are actually trying to tell me that all the immoral laws decreed by the Biblegod are given "to tell us not to practice them"? Your reasoning is void of sense!


If you don't own your children, then your children are not your own. We own what belongs to us and from us.... don't you own your own body? Your children are your own blood, flesh and bones, ok?.... which is why we are obliged to take care of them till they reach maturity.

No, you do not own your children as property in the way that people owned slaves, or that fathers and husbands owned women in the Bible. Sometimes children are of your flesh and bone, and sometimes they are adopted, either way they are yours to care for and nurture until they are able to care for themselves.



You are wrong in your interpretation which I have already told you. Yes, they were passed down as an inheritance which means that they will also enjoy the inheritance. It is a way of saying they became part of their foster family and they are to work for them to repay their kindness and their investment. In no way did the Bible said they lost their freedom. Don't be taken away by the word "forever" which is a hyperbole meaning for a long time; nothing on earth is for forever.

As usual Cheow, you are just making things up. The biblical law explicitly tells us that the wife of the Hebrew slave and her children belong to the master, they ARE NOT free to leave even though her husband has served his time, because the woman and her children are OWNED by the master.




Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.





You are throwing your life away. The Bible teach us what is evil and immoral and to avoid them. it teaches us how to live life righteously, abundantly and to have it ETERNALLY.

The Bible teaches us to blindly follow immoral laws, because they are supposedly given by a deity.



If heaven is a myth then whatever that was written in the Bible about the supposed inequality against women are also a myth, why do you still believe in all these myths?
Myths or not , we Christians believed the Bible because of the Promise that if we did the will of the Father in heaven, we will go into the Kingdom of Heaven which is equivalent to Utopia on Earth.

Of course I know that the inequality that the Bible promotes is WRONG! Why do you think I keep saying that over and over again?


It does matter because human rights is derived from traditions. It was a human right to be polygamous and women can easily divorced their husband because that was the traditions of their times. I was a tradition to believe in Baal and thus their "human right" (which was evil belief) to sacrifice children, worship the Phallus and have sex with temple prostitutes (males and females).

Human rights aren't derived from traditions! Where do you get such crazy notions?

Human rights are the "rights" that each individual person has to choose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





Because the UDHR is telling them to give up their tradition of forced marriage which they are happily doing. Suppose the UDHR tells us to give up our wealth and share them with the poor for the sake of equality and equal human rights to have wealth, will you be happy to do that? Some people believe that UDHR is imposing western traditional ideas of human rights on them which is why they did not signed the UDHR and besides, UDHR is not mandatory and thee is no enforcement to force them to adhere strictly to the UDHR even if they signed. the UDHR is like a blank piece of paper which you can just declare but may not observed with no expected deterrence.

Of course they have to give up FORCED marriage. :doh: Forcing someone to marry is violating their human rights!

Why do you have such a hard time getting this through your head? When you force someone against their will to marry another person that is a gross violation of their human rights!



Human rights are not based on merits!If it is not based on merits, how are you supposed we can achieve them?....by evolution? .... or by human efforts?

Human rights are not earned! We are all equally entitled to them because we are human. It has NOTHING to do with merits, efforts or achievement.



It was their belief in Baal that sacrificing children will bring them blessings and fertility. It was their choice to belief what they want; freedom of choice is a human right isn't it? Same with people who believed in Nazism.

You can believe what you want, but you cannot IMPOSE or FORCE those beliefs on others ... that is in violation of their human rights.



It is like telling us that taking captives of war should not be treated as POWs. Taking captives as POWs is an agreement since humans existed. This was necessary as a punishment for being loyal to the enemy and to ensure justice to those they have killed and that they (the enemy) will not harmed the victors. The Israelites treated the women captives humanely unlike other tribes of their times. They were married so that they became their bride and were given the rights as a Jewish bride and will not be treated as slaves and became free when they were divorced. Furthermore, they were given God's blessings same as the Jews. Traditionally, captives were understood to be tortured, humiliated, raped and sold as slaves but we don't see that in the Bible in the way the Israelites treated the women captives.

Taking POWs is one thing, but specifically capturing women because they are beautiful and you desire them, and then forcing them to marry is quite another thing. It does not matter how well a person is treated, if they are forced to marry against their will that is a gross violation of their human rights. The Bible allows such gross human rights violations, therefore the Bible condones immoral behavior.

.

Even if they are happy and willing to be forced in order to carry o their tradition? Same as polygamy in which women willingly and happily married to the man.... should they be stopped in the name of equal human rights? It is the same as forcing equal human rights on people who are not willingly to accept them..... is t right to impose equal human rights on them?


Same as you, I think your head is harder than mine.:D

God Bless.:pray:

That is totally oxymoronic! A person can't be willing and forced at the same time!

All humans are entitled to equal human rights,
Rose

Rose
07-04-2014, 12:02 PM
What!! Since when are rape and murder personal rights?? :eek:
Same as what you said about prostitution to Mystakal. Personal choice to do what they want to do is their personal human right, right?

God Bless.:pray:

What is wrong with your brain?? :confused: Prostitution is NOT the same as murder or rape!! :eek:

Rape and murder are not human rights!!

Rose
07-04-2014, 12:28 PM
Human standards are not precise and therefore cannot be use as a yardstick. The problem is that humans are not very good in discerning what is evil and what is good and what is moral and what is immoral. This is the main reason why there are so many conflicting views and debates on these things.....analogous to why there are so many conflicting views and debates to many theories.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?? I am not talking about human standards, I am talking about the standard of "being human". The quality all people share is that we are all human ... if someone is human then they are entitled to same rights as all other humans. Being human is the standard, which determines whether you are entitled to human rights. The "rights" that we are all entitled to as humans are clearly spelled out in the U.D.H.R. (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop).


The Bible bases rights on what is good, suitable and moral . There is no Gender inequalities in the Bible based on the main facts that humans are made in God's image and that both gender enjoy equal rights to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

God Bless.:pray:

What!! You said: "There are no gender inequalities in the Bible!" Have you taken leave of your senses, or has your brain been so totally corrupted by your religion that you are no longer able to discern right from wrong??

The Bible is filled with gender inequalities from cover to cover, starting with the egregious violation of women's human rights by decreeing that a man should rule over women!

The Bible is an immoral book because it denies peoples equal human rights, therefore it is unjust and unfair!
Rose

Mystykal
07-04-2014, 10:51 PM
Hello Mystykal,
Sorry you lost your post. I know how frustrating that is. :break:

Prostitution is an example of human rights being mixed up with ethics. On one hand it should be a persons right to sell their sexual services for money if they want to, but on the other hand a community might not want that type of business to operate in their city so they make a law against it ... that is also their right. The main issue I see pertaining to human rights is the "equality" aspect of it, like we find in the Bible where men are allowed rights that women are denied solely because of gender. A persons human rights are NOT based on gender or race, they are based on being human.

For some reason you have gotten the wrong idea that "human rights" means all activities that don't outwardly harm or injure another person. For example: it is wrong to own another human being no matter how well you treat them. Just because you partake in a "harmless" action does not make it a right. Rights must first be determined to be just and fair and then equally given to all people ... or equally denied all people if circumstances dictate that. For example: during some emergency situations curfews are imposed on all people.

Being human is the "standard" by which a persons " equal rights" are determined. In order to make a judgment on whether something is right or wrong, a standard is needed to make that decision. For example: if a man is allowed an education, but a woman is not based on her gender, it can be determined that both genders are human and therefore entitled to the right of an education. This is how "rights" are determined based on being human.

The term "equal human rights" means that all people (genders and races) share the privilege of having the same rights as everyone else, but first those rights must be determined to be fair and just.

Hope that helps, :)
Rose

Hi Rose:
You seem to be saying two different things... The idea tha the UN can set marriage standards is not true! The equal rights of marriage are determined not by UN standards but by state and federal law! The UN treaty might not appear to be against polygamy but it was written in the 1940ties and it does not specifically mention polygamy or gay marriages specifically. Furthermore IF the UN is going to set the law in the USA on other things like religion and guns and the rights to bear arms - things clearly protected by US Constitutuion which is NOT protected by the UN equal rights statement! Are you suggesting that the US should give up its Constitution and replace it with the UN DHR? :confused:


On one hand it should be a persons right to sell their sexual services for money if they want to, but on the other hand a community might not want that type of business to operate in their city so they make a law against it ... that is also their right.
So are you saying that human rights can cancel out each other? If a town outlaws prostitution then the Human Rights of the individual wanting to practice prostitution is being infringed upon in that town. What if the town does not want churches or Christians or Muslims? Can they just pass a law and ban them too?:mad: Is that their "right" also? You make no sense to me! You either have inalienable rights which are for everyone which cannot be taken away by law or you have NO Justice based on Human Rights.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
07-05-2014, 10:31 AM
Hi Rose:
You seem to be saying two different things... The idea tha the UN can set marriage standards is not true! The equal rights of marriage are determined not by UN standards but by state and federal law! The UN treaty might not appear to be against polygamy but it was written in the 1940ties and it does not specifically mention polygamy or gay marriages specifically. Furthermore IF the UN is going to set the law in the USA on other things like religion and guns and the rights to bear arms - things clearly protected by US Constitutuion which is NOT protected by the UN equal rights statement! Are you suggesting that the US should give up its Constitution and replace it with the UN DHR? :confused:


So are you saying that human rights can cancel out each other? If a town outlaws prostitution then the Human Rights of the individual wanting to practice prostitution is being infringed upon in that town. What if the town does not want churches or Christians or Muslims? Can they just pass a law and ban them too?:mad: Is that their "right" also? You make no sense to me! You either have inalienable rights which are for everyone which cannot be taken away by law or you have NO Justice based on Human Rights.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

I think what you are doing is mixing up "human rights" with the rights of countries, states and communities to make laws that determine what rules and duties citizens have who are part of that society. Just because a society makes a law governing how people can act and what they can do, does not mean that law is just or fair ... look at the Bible, it is filled with laws that are biased, unjust and violate peoples human rights.

Human "rights" are those rights that pertain to individuals regardless of the society they live in. The U.D.H.R. is a good document to read, it will help you understand what things are considered "human rights".


Article 2:


Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Marriage rights fall under the category of "human rights" which everyone of adult age is entitled to freely participate in regardless of gender or race. Just because societies make laws and rules that prohibit certain types of marriage, in no way means those laws are just and not in violation of a persons "human rights".


Article 16:


(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Remember there is a distinction between what individual governments and societies deem to be a rule or a law for its citizens, and what is a human right. A human "right" is a fundamental "right" that all people are entitled to regardless of what society they live in, their gender or race ... far different from a rule or a law.


Hope that helps clear up the confusion, :)

Rose